





QH 104 
.5 

. P32 
E36 
2008 
Copy 2 


FT MEADE 
GenCol1 


I states 

inmental Protection 

;y 


MMOSp, 






Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters 
along the U.S. Western Continental Shelf: 2003 



EPA 620/R-08/001 | September 2008 | www.epa.gov/ord 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 79 























EPA 620/R-08/001/ September 2008/ 

www.epa.gov 



Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters 
along the U.S. Western Continental Shelf: 2003 


September 2008 


Prepared By 

Walter G. Nelson 1 , Jeffrey L. Hyland 2 , Henry Lee II 1 , Cynthia L. Cooksey 2 , 
Janet O. Lamberson 1 , Faith A. Cole 1 , Patrick J. Clinton 1 


Author Affiliations 

1 Western Ecology Division 

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Newport OR 97365 

2 Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
219 Fort Johnson Road 
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110 



Preface 


This document provides an assessment of the status of ecological condition in 
coastal-ocean waters along the U.S. continental shelf, from the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 
WA to the Mexican border, based on sampling conducted in June 2003. The project 
was a large collaborative effort by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and West Coast States. It 
also represents one of a series of assessments conducted under the Western regional 
component of EPA’s National Coastal Assessment (NCA-West). The NCA is the 
coastal component of the nationwide Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 
Program (EMAP). The NCA-West program is administered through the EPA and 
implemented through partnerships with a variety of federal and state agencies, 
universities, and the private sector. The 2003 west-coast shelf assessment involved the 
participation and collaboration of EPA, NOAA, Washington Department of Ecology, 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Southern California Coastal 
Water Research Project (SCCWRP), with additional contributions from personnel of 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and Moss Landing Marine 
Laboratories. 

The appropriate citation for this report is: 

W.G. Nelson, J.L. Hyland, H. Lee II, C.L. Cooksey, J.O. Lamberson, F.A. Cole, and P.J. 
Clinton. 2008. Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters along the U.S. Western 
Continental Shelf: 2003. EPA 620/R-08/001, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and 
Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, 

Western Ecology Division, Newport OR, 97365; and NOAA Technical Memorandum 
NOS NCCOS 79, NOAA National Ocean Service, Charleston, SC 29412-9110. 137 p. 


Disclaimer 


This document has been subjected to review by the National Health and 
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory of EPA and the National Ocean Service of 
NOAA and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect 
the official views of these agencies, nor does mention of trade names or commercial 
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 



^3'7fc^' L 


Acknowledgments 


The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by EPA under 
Cooperative Agreements with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (CR 
827869 ), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (CR 87840 ), and SCCWRP 
(CR 827870 ) and an Inter-Agency Agreement with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (DW 13938780). Additionally, cooperative efforts with the NOAA National 
Ocean Service were conducted under a General Collaborative Agreement (NOS #MOA- 
2005-003/6764, EPA #PW139221956-01-0). 

This study involved the participation of numerous representatives from a variety 
of federal, state, local, academic, and private institutions. Many individuals within EPA 
made important contributions to the study. Critical guidance and vision in establishing 
the overall NCA-West program was provided by Kevin Summers of Gulf Ecology 
Division. Tony Olsen of Western Ecology Division (WED), with technical support from 
staff of Computer Science Corporation, provided the sampling designs utilized for 
various aspects of the study. Lorraine Edmond of Region 10 and Terrence Fleming of 
the Region 9 Offices of EPA ably served as the regional liaisons with the state 
participants. Robert Ozretich of WED performed a detailed review of the database 
contents used for this analysis, and we additionally thank him for his extensive quality 
assurance review of this document. 

A major portion of the study area was sampled from the NOAA ship McARTHUR 
II on Cruise AR-03-01-NC, which consisted of three legs encompassing the period from 
June 1-26, 2003. All members of the three field crews (see list below) are commended 
for their high level of technical expertise, teamwork and dedication to getting the 
required sampling completed. In particular, the dedication of the Chief Scientists for 
each of the three legs is greatly appreciated. These were Sarah Wilson formerly with 
Washington Department of Ecology (Leg 1), Larry Caton with Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality (Leg 2), and Rusty Fairey with Moss Landing Marine 
Laboratories (Leg 3). Special appreciation also is extended to the officers and crew of 
the NOAA ship McARTHUR II for the superb job performed. 

Sarah Wilson also was especially helpful in obtaining published and unpublished 
data on the location of cable crossings, hard bottom areas, and other hazards to the 
safe and successful conduct of field sampling. Dr. Chris Goldfinger of Oregon State 
University and Dr. Gary Greene of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories kindly supplied 
unpublished bottom type data that was of assistance in preparation of the maps for 
determining sample locations. 

Personnel of the Fisheries Resource Analysis and Monitoring (FRAM) Division of 
the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) of NOAA collected fish specimens as 
part of their western ground-fish surveys at stations that coincided with the NCA-WEST 
sampling area. These specimens supplemented the pool of samples available for 
tissue-contaminant analysis performed subsequently by EPA and state partners. 


Appreciation is extended particularly to the following NWFSC individuals for their 
assistance: Tonya Ramsey, Dan Kamikawa, Erica Fruh, Eric Eisenhardt, Keith Bosley, 
Victor Simon, Chad Keith, Chante Davis, Keri York, Josie Thompson, Jennifer Gilden, 
Jennie Flammang, Stacey Miller, Ian Stewart, Vanessa Tuttle, Jim Benante, Roger 
Clark, John Harms, Beth Horness, Lisa Lysak, Jennifer Menkel. 

Data coverage throughout the Southern California Bight portion of the study area 
(Pt. Conception, CA to the Mexican border) was made possible through coordination 
with a companion assessment conducted by SCCWRP during the same general time- 
frame using similar methods and indicators. Dr. Steven Weisberg, Director of 
SCCWRP, was the principal liaison for coordination with the Bight ’03 study. Additional 
assistance with coordination of sampling and data submission was provided by Ken 
Schiff, Larry Cooper, and Shelly Moore of SCCWRP. 

Editorial assistance with the document was provided by Jimmie Cheney and 
Karen Ebert. The report cover was produced with the assistance of Brian Garges of the 
Graphics Department of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research 
Laboratory (NHEERL). Technical reviews of this report were provided by Steven 
Gittings and Len Balthis with NOAA and by Valerie Partridge with Washington 
Department of Ecology. 


IV 


The members of the scientific crews for the EMAP 2003 survey of ecological conditions 
of the western U.S. continental shelf are listed below and their contributions to this study 
are gratefully acknowledged. An * indicates the Chief Scientist on the particular cruise 
leg. 


Cruise Leg 

Name 

Affiliation 

Leg 1 - Washington 

June 1 - June 7, 2003 


Sarah Wilson* 

WA Dept, of Ecology 


Julia Bos 

WA Dept, of Ecology 


Ed Bowlby 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 


Jon Buzitis 

NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service 


Larry Caton 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Ken Dzinbal 

WA Dept, of Ecology 


Steve Hale 

Environmental Protection Agency 


Shera Hickman 

AK Dept, of Environmental Conservation 


Jeff Hyland 

NOAA/National Ocean Service 


Noel Larson 

WA Dept, of Ecology 


Valerie Partridge 

WA Dept, of Ecology 


Dave Terpening 

Environmental Protection Agency 


Doc Thompson 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Leg 2 - Oregon 

June 8 - June 15, 2003 


Larry Caton* 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Aaron Borisenko 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Greg Coffeen 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Cindy Cooksey 

NOAA/National Ocean Service 


Rusty Fairey 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 


Won Kim 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Peter Leinenbach 

Environmental Protection Agency 


Greg McMurray 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Sarah Miller 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Greg Pettit 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 


Steve Rumrill 

South Slough Estuarine Reserve 


Andy Schaedel 

OR Dept, of Environmental Quality 

Leg 3 - California 

June 18 - June 26, 

2003 


Rusty Fairey* 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 


JD Dubick 

NOAA/National Ocean Service 


Lorraine Edmond 

Environmental Protection Agency 


Laura Gabanski 

Environmental Protection Agency 


Matt Huber 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 


Tom Kimball 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 


Sara Lowe 

San Francisco Estuary Institute 


Mark Pranger 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 


Bruce Thompson 

San Francisco Estuary Institute 


Tamara Vos 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 


Susan Wainwright 

NOAA Teacher at Sea Program (volunteer) 


v 

































Table of Contents 


Preface.ii 

Acknowledgments.iii 

List of Figures.x 

List of Tables.xv 

List of Appendix Tables.xvii 

List of Acronyms. xviii 

Executive Summary.xx 

1.0 Introduction.1 

1.1 Program Background.1 

1.2 NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries.3 

1.3 Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program.4 

2.0 Methods.5 

2.1 Sampling Design.5 

2.1.1 EMAP.5 

2.1.2 Bight ’03. 6 

2.1.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey.7 

2.2 Water Column Sampling.7 

2.3 Biological and Sediment Sampling.9 

2.3.1 Sediment Pollutant and Nutrient Analysis.9 

2.4 Fish Tissue.11 

2.4.1 EMAP.11 

2.4.2 Bight ’03.11 


VII 
























2.4.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey.12 

2.5 Quality Assurance.12 

2.5.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses.12 

2.5.2 Metals in Sediments.13 

2.5.3 Organics in Sediments.14 

2.5.4 Metals in Tissue.15 

2.5.5 Organics in Tissue.15 

2.6 Statistical Data Analyses.16 

2.7 Sampling, Data Integration and Data Quality Issues.17 

3.0. Results and Discussion.18 

3.1 Sampling Locations.18 

3.2 Water Column Characteristics.30 

3.2.1 Salinity.30 

3.2.2 Water Temperature.30 

3.2.3 Water Column Stratification.36 

3.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen.36 

3.2.5 Total Suspended Solids.42 

3.2.6 Transmissivity.42 

3.2.7 Nutrients.42 

3.2.8 Chlorophyll a. 47 

3.3 Sediment Quality. 55 

3.3.1 Sediment Composition: Grain Size and TOC. 55 


VIII 
























3.3.2 Sediment Contaminants: Metals and Organics.62 

3.4 Fish Tissue Contaminants.72 

3.4.1 EMAP/NCA-West Survey.72 

Cadmium .72 

Other parameters .73 

3.4.2 FRAM Groundfish Survey.77 

Cadmium .77 

Mercury .77 

Other parameters .77 

3.5 Status of Benthic Communities.79 

3.5.1 Taxonomic Composition.80 

3.5.2 Diversity.80 

3.5.3 Abundance and Dominant Taxa.94 

3.5.4 Biogeographical Distributions.99 

3.5.5 Nonindigenous Species.106 

3.5.6 Potential Linkage to Stressor Impacts.107 

4.0 Literature Cited.111 

5.0 Appendix Tables.118 


ix 

























List of Figures 


Figure 2.2.1. CTD and Niskin bottle rosette sampler on the deck of the NOAA Ship 

mcarthur ii.8 

Figure 2.3.1. Close up view of double Van Veen grab sampler used for bottom 
sampling.11 

Figure 2.4.1. Hook-and-line fishing for fish tissue sampling aboard the NOAA Ship 

mcarthur ii. 12 

Figure 3.1.1. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 
Assessment.19 

Figure 3.1.2. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 
Assessment along the continental shelf of Washington.20 

Figure 3.1.3. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 
Assessment along the continental shelf of Oregon.21 

Figure 3.1.4. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 
Assessment along the continental shelf of California north of Pt. Conception.22 

Figure 3.1.5. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 
Assessment along the continental shelf of California south of Pt. Conception within the 
Southern California Bight.23 

Figure 3.1.6. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA.24 

Figure 3.1.7. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
along the continental shelf of Washington, from which fish tissue samples were 
collected for analysis by NCA.25 

Figure 3.1.8. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
along the continental shelf of Oregon, from which fish tissue samples were collected for 
analysis by NCA.26 

Figure 3.1.9. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
along the continental shelf of northern California, from which fish tissue samples were 
collected for analysis by NCA.27 


x 














Figure 3.1.10. Percent area (and 95% Cl) of West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. 
depth. 


29 


Figure 3.2.1. Distribution of surface salinity values for the West Coast Shelf sampling 
area, June 2003.31 

Figure 3.2.2. Mean +1 SD surface salinity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon 
and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 

Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.32 

Figure 3.2.3. Mean +1 SD bottom salinity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon 
and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 

Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.33 

Figure 3.2.4. Mean +1 SD surface temperature compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 
Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.34 

Figure 3.2.5. Mean +1 SD bottom temperature compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 
Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.35 

Figure 3.2.6. Mean +1 SD water column stratification index (Ao t ) compared among (A) 
all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 
locations.37 

Figure 3.2.7. Bakun upwelling index for 36° N latitude for the West Coast in June 2003. 
.38 


Figure 3.2.8. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, 

California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California 
non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . 
.39 

Figure 3.2.9. Distribution of bottom dissolved oxygen concentration values for the West 
Coast Shelf sampling area, June 2003.40 

Figure 3.2.10. Mean +1 SD bottom dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California 
non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . . 

.41 


XI 













Figure 3.2.11. Mean +1 SD surface Total Suspended Solids compared among (A) all, 
California, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non- 
NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington non-NMS sample locations.43 

Figure 3.2.12. Mean +1 SD surface transmissivity compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 
Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.44 

Figure 3.2.13. Mean +1 SD bottom transmissivity compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 
Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.45 

Figure 3.2.14. Mean +1 SD surface nitrate + nitrite compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 
Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.48 

Figure 3.2.15. Mean +1 SD surface ammonium compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, 
Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.49 

Figure 3.2.16. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen compared among (A) 
all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 
locations.50 

Figure 3.2.17. Mean +1 SD surface orthophosphate compared among (A) all, 

California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California 
non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . 
.51 


Figure 3.2.18. Mean +1 SD N/P ratio in surface waters compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California 
non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . 
.52 


Figure 3.2.19. Mean +1 SD surface silicate concentration compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California 
non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . 

.53 

Figure 3.2.20. Mean +1 SD surface chlorophyll a concentration compared among (A) 
all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 
locations. 54 


XII 












Figure 3.3.1. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf 
sampling area vs. sediment percent fines (silt/clay).58 


Figure 3.3.2. Comparison of sediment percent silt/clay (mean + 1 SD) by (A) West 
Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS 
stations.59 

Figure 3.3.4. Comparison of sediment percent Total Organic Carbon (TOC, mean + 1 
SD) by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) 
vs. non-NMS stations.61 

Figure 3.3.5. Comparison of the spatial extent of sediment contamination by (A) West 
Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS 
stations.67 

Figure 3.3.6. Distribution of Total DDT concentrations in sediments along the SCB 
relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.68 

Figure 3.3.7. Distribution of 4,4'-DDE concentrations in sediments along the SCB 
relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.68 

Figure 3.3.8. Distribution of mercury concentrations in sediments along the continental 
shelf of California relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.69 

Figure 3.3.9. Distribution of 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations in sediments along the 
SCB relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.70 

Figure 3.3.10. Distribution of chromium concentrations in sediments along the western 
U.S. continental shelf relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.71 

Figure 3.4.1. Tissue vs. sediment concentration of cadmium at corresponding stations 
from the EMAP/NCA-West 2003 shelf survey including samples from Washington, 
Oregon and California.73 

Figure 3.5.1. Comparison of percent faunal composition by abundance among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 

California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 
locations.87 

Figure 3.5.2. Comparison of percent faunal composition by taxa among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 

California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 
locations.88 


XIII 














Figure 3.5.3. Comparison of benthic species richness (mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 


locations.90 

Figure 3.5.4. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf 
sampling area vs. benthic species richness (# taxa/0.1-m' 2 grab).91 

Figure 3.5.5. Map illustrating the distribution of benthic species richness (# taxa per 
0.1- m 2 grab) throughout the West Coast region.92 

Figure 3.5.6. Comparison of benthic species diversity (H\ mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 


California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 
locations.93 

Figure 3.5.7. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf 
sampling area vs. Shannon-Wiener (H') diversity index.94 

Figure 3.5.8. Comparison of benthic density (mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, California, 
Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non- 
NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.97 

Figure 3.5.9. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf 
sampling area vs. benthic abundance (number of individuals/m 2 ).98 

Figure 3.5.10. Marine ecoregions bordering the Pacific Coast of the United States from 
Southern California through the Aleutian Islands.104 

Figure 3.5.11. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the polychaete Magelona longicornis. 
.105 

Figure 3.5.12. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the bivalve Axinopsida serricata.. 105 

Figure 3.5.13. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica. ..106 

Figure 3.5.14. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the decapod Pinnixa occidentalis. . 
.106 


XIV 











List of Tables 


Table 2.2.1. Equipment used for hydrographic profile measurements.9 

Table 2.3.1. Compounds analyzed in sediments and fish tissues in the West Coast 
Shelf Assessment...10 

Table 3.3.1. Comparison of sediment physical characteristics and chemical 
contaminant concentrations for (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National 
Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) vs. non-NMS.56 

Table 3.3.2. ERM and ERL guidance values in sediments (Long et al. 1995).64 

Table 3.3.3. Comparison of the % area of sediments with chemical contaminants in 
excess of corresponding ERL and ERM sediment quality guidelines.65 

Table 3.3.4 Comparison of the number of stations with chemical contaminants in excess 
of corresponding ERL and ERM sediment quality guideline values.66 

Table 3.4.1. Risk-based EPA advisory guidelines for recreational fishers.74 

Table 3.4.2. Comparison by state of the concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and 
organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in fish tissue composites from fish 
collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West).75 

Table 3.4.3. Comparison by NMS vs. non-sanctuary status of the concentrations of 
metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in fish- 
tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West survey).76 

Table 3.4.4. Concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g 
wet weight) measured in tissue composites offish collected from 60 stations in the 2003 
FRAM survey.78 

Table 3.4.5. Ratios of concentrations of measured parameters in fillets vs. remains of 
fish in flatfish collected in Washington for the FRAM survey.79 

Table 3.5.1. Summary of major taxonomic groups for the west-coast shelf region wide. 
.82 

Table 3.5.2. Comparison of the proportion of taxa within major taxonomic groups on the 


shelf vs. West Coast estuaries.83 

Table 3.5.3. Comparison of the number of taxa, H' diversity (log 2 ), and densities 
(nT 2 ) of benthic infaunal assemblages on the shelf vs. West Coast estuaries.84 


xv 
















Table 3.5.4. Fifty most abundant benthic taxa in the West Coast shelf survey 
regionwide. 


85 


Table 3.5.5. Comparison of dominant (10 most abundant) taxa among (A) all, California, 
Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non- 
NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.98 

Table 3.5.6. Nonindigenous species from the shelf survey.108 


XVI 





List of Appendix Tables 


Appendix Table 1. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment. . 
.118 

Appendix Table 2. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
stations from which fish were analyzed for tissue contaminants by EPA.124 

Appendix Table 3a. Summary for Washington data of performance with regard to QC 
criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent 
difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV ) of replicates.126 

Appendix Table 3b. Summary for Oregon data of performance with regard to QC 
criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent 
difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV ) of replicates.127 

Appendix Table 3c. Summary for California data of performance with regard to QC 
criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent 
difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV ) of replicates.128 

Appendix Table 4. Summary by station of key benthic variables and corresponding 
sediment and water-quality indicators.129 

Appendix Table 5. Biogeographic distributions of the 39 most abundant benthic taxa 
identified to species in the West Coast shelf survey.135 


XVII 









List of Acronyms 


CBNMS 

CDF 

CINMS 

CTD 

CRM 

CV 

CWA 

DO 

EAM 

EMAP 

EPA 

ERL 

ERM 

FRAM 

GAO 

GFNMS 

GIS 

GPS 

GRTS 

IEA 

LCM 

MBNMS 

MDL 

MOA 

MOU 

NCA 

NCA-West 

NCCOS 

NMFS 

NMS 

NMAO 

NOAA 

NOS 

N/P 

NWFSC 

OCNMS 

ORD 

PAH 

PAR 

PCB 

QA/QC 

RL 

RPD 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

Cumulative distribution function 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 
Conductivity-Temperature-Depth 

Certified Reference Material 

Coefficient of Variation 

Clean Water Act 

Dissolved Oxygen Concentration 

Ecosystem Approach to Management 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Effects Range Low 

Effects Range Median 

Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring 

U. S. General Accounting Office 

Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

Geographic Information System 

Global Positioning System 

Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified 

Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 

Laboratory Control Material 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

Method Detection Limit 

Memorandum of Agreement 

Memorandum of Understanding 

National Coastal Assessment 

National Coastal Assessment - Western regional component 
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Marine Sanctuary 

NOAA Marine and Aircraft Operation 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA National Ocean Service 

Nitrogen to Phosphorus 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

EPA Office of Research and Development 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Photosynthetically Active Radiation 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

Reporting Limit 

Relative Percent Difference 


XVIII 


SCB 

Southern California Bight 

SCCWRP 

Southern California Water Resources Research Project 

SRM 

Standard Reference Material 

SD 

Standard Deviation 

SQG 

Sediment Duality Guideline 

TOC 

Total Organic Carbon 

TSS 

Total Suspended Solids 

WED 

Western Ecology Division 


XIX 


Executive Summary 


The western National Coastal Assessment (NCA-West) program of EPA, in 
conjunction with the NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS), conducted an assessment 
of the status of ecological condition of soft sediment habitats and overlying waters along 
the western U.S. continental shelf, between the target depths of 30 and 120 m, during 
June 2003. NCA-West and NOAA/NOS partnered with the West Coast states 
(Washington (WA), Oregon (OR), and California (CA)), and the Southern California 
Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) Bight ’03 program to conduct the survey. 

A total of 257 stations were sampled from Cape Flattery, WA to the Mexican border 
using standard methods and indicators applied in previous coastal NCA projects. A key 
study feature was the incorporation of a stratified-random sampling design with stations 
stratified by state and National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) status. Each of the three 
states was represented by at least 50 random stations. There also were a total of 84 
random stations located within NOAA’s five NMSs along the West Coast including the 
Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS), Cordell Bank NMS (CBNMS), Gulf of Farallones NMS 
(GFNMS), Monterey Bay NMS (MBNMS), and Channel Islands NMS (CINMS). 

Collection of flatfish via hook-and-line for fish-tissue contaminant analysis was 
successful at 50 EMAP/NCA-West stations. Through a collaboration developed with the 
FRAM Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, fish from an additional 63 
stations in the same region and depth range were also analyzed for fish-tissue 
contaminants. 

Bottom depth throughout the region ranged from 28 m to 125 m for most stations. 
Two slightly deeper stations from the Southern California Bight (SCB) (131, 134 m) 
were included in the data set. About 44% of the survey area had sediments composed 
of sands (< 20% silt-clay), about 47% was composed of intermediate muddy sands (20- 
80% silt-clay), and about 9% was composed of muds (> 80% silt-clay). The majority of 
the survey area (97%) had relatively low percent total organic carbon (TOC) levels of 
< 2%, while a small portion (< 1%) had high TOC levels (> 5%), in a range potentially 
harmful to benthic fauna. 

Salinity of surface waters for 92% of the survey area were > 31 psu, with most 
stations < 31 psu associated with the Columbia River plume. Bottom salinities ranged 
only between 31.6 and 34.4 psu. There was virtually no difference in mean bottom 
salinities among states or between NMS and non-NMS stations. Temperatures of 
surface water (range 8.5 -19.9 °C) and bottom water (range 5.8 -14.7 °C) averaged 
several degrees higher in CA in comparison to WA and OR. The Ao t index of water- 
column stratification indicated that about 31% of the survey area had strong vertical 
stratification of the water column. The index was greatest for waters off WA and lowest 
for CA waters. 

Only about 2.6 % of the survey area had surface dissolved oxygen (DO) 
concentrations < 4.8 mg/L, and there were no values below the lower threshold (2.3 
mg/L) considered harmful to the survival and growth of marine animals. Surface DO 


xx 


concentrations were higher in WA and OR waters than in CA, and higher in the OC 
NMS than in the CA sanctuaries. An estimated 94.3% of the area had bottom-water DO 
concentrations < 4.8 mg/L and 6.6% had concentrations < 2.3 mg/L. The high 
prevalence of DO from 2.3 to 4.8 mg/L (85% of survey area) is believed to be 
associated with the upwelling of naturally low DO water across the West Coast shelf. 

Mean TSS and transmissivity in surface waters (excluding OR due to sample 
problems) were slightly higher and lower, respectively, for stations in WA than for those 
in CA. There was little difference in mean TSS or transmissivity between NMS and non- 
NMS locations. Mean transmissivity in bottom waters, though higher in comparison to 
surface waters, showed little difference among geographic regions or between NMS 
and non-NMS locations. 

Concentrations of nitrate + nitrite, ammonium, total dissolved inorganic nitrogen 
(DIN) and orthophosphate (P) in surface waters tended to be highest in CA compared to 
WA and OR, and higher in the CA NMS stations compared to CA non-sanctuary 
stations. Measurements of silicate in surface waters were limited to WA and CA 
(exclusive of the SCB) and showed that concentrations were similar between the two 
states and approximately twice as high in CA sanctuaries compared to OCNMS or non¬ 
sanctuary locations in either state. The elevated nutrient concentrations observed at 
CA NMS stations are consistent with the presence of strong upwelling at these sites at 
the time of sampling. Approximately 93% of the area had DIN/P values < 16, indicative 
of nitrogen limitation. Mean DIN/P ratios were similar among the three states, although 
the mean for the OCNMS was less than half that of the CA sanctuaries or non¬ 
sanctuary locations. Concentrations of chlorophyll a in surface waters ranged from 0 to 
28 pg L" 1 , with 50% of the area having values < 3.9 pg L' 1 and 10% having values > 

14.5 pg L' 1 . The mean concentration of chlorophyll a for CA was less than half that of 
WA and OR locations, and concentrations were lowest in non-sanctuary sites in CA and 
highest at the OCNMS. 

Shelf sediments throughout the survey area were relatively uncontaminated with 
the exception of a group of stations within the SCB. Overall, about 99% of the total 
survey area was rated in good condition (<5 chemicals measured above corresponding 
effect range low (ERL) concentrations). Only the pesticides 4,4-DDE and total DDT 
exceeded corresponding effect range-median (ERM) values, all at stations in CA near 
Los Angeles. Ten other contaminants including seven metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ag, 
Zn), 2-methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, and total PCBs exceeded 
corresponding ERLs. The most prevalent in terms of area were chromium (31%), 
arsenic (8%), 2-methylnaphthalene (6%), cadmium (5%), and mercury (4%). The 
chromium contamination may be related to natural background sources common to the 
region. The 2-methylnaphthalene exceedances were conspicuously grouped around 
the CINMS. The mercury exceedances were all at non-sanctuary sites in CA, 
particularly in the Los Angeles area. 


XXI 


Concentrations of cadmium in fish tissues exceeded the lower end of EPA’s non¬ 
cancer, human-health-risk range at nine of 50 EMAP/NCA-West and nine of 60 FRAM 
groundfish-survey stations, including a total of seven NMS stations in CA and two in the 
OCNMS. The human-health guidelines for all other contaminants were only exceeded 
for total PCBs at one station located in WA near the mouth of the Columbia River. 

Benthic species richness was relatively high in these offshore assemblages, 
ranging from 19 to 190 taxa per 0.1 -m 2 grab and averaging 79 taxa/grab. The high 
species richness was reflected over large areas of the shelf and was nearly three times 
greater than levels observed in estuarine samples along the West Coast (e.g NCA-West 
estuarine mean of 26 taxa/grab). Mean species richness was highest off CA (94 taxa/ 
grab) and lower in OR and WA (55 and 56 taxa/grab, respectively). Mean species 
richness was very similar between sanctuary vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the CA 
and OR/WA regions. Mean diversity index H' was highest in CA (5.36) and lowest in 
WA (4.27). There were no major differences in mean H' between sanctuary vs. non¬ 
sanctuary stations for both the CA and OR/WA regions. 

A total of 1,482 taxa (1,108 to species) and 99,135 individuals were identified 
region-wide. Polychaetes, crustaceans and molluscs were the dominant taxa, both by 
percent abundance (59%, 17%, 12% respectively) and percent species (44%, 25%, 

17%, respectively). There were no major differences in the percent composition of 
benthic communities among states or between NMSs and corresponding non-sanctuary 
sites. Densities averaged 3,788 m' 2 , about 30% of the average density for West Coast 
estuaries. Mean density of benthic fauna in the present offshore survey, averaged by 
state, was highest in CA (4,351 m' 2 ) and lowest in OR (2,310 m' 2 ). Mean densities were 
slightly higher at NMS stations vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the CA and OR/WA 
regions. 

The 10 most abundant taxa were the polychaetes Mediomastus spp., Magelona 
longicornis, Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Spiophanes bom byx, Spiophanes duplex, and 
Prionospio jubata\ the bivalve Axinopsida serricata, the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica, the 
decapod Pinnixa occidentalis, and the ostracod Euphilomedes carcharodonta. 
Mediomastus spp. and A. serricata were the two most abundant taxa overall. Although 
many of these taxa have broad geographic distributions throughout the region, the 
same species were not ranked among the 10 most abundant taxa consistently across 
states. The closest similarities among states were between OR and WA. At least half 
of the 10 most abundant taxa in NMSs were also dominant in corresponding non¬ 
sanctuary waters. 

Many of the abundant benthic species have wide latitudinal distributions along 
the West Coast shelf, with some species ranging from southern CA into the Gulf of 
Alaska or even the Aleutians. Of the 39 taxa on the list of 50 most abundant taxa that 
could be identified to species level, 85% have been reported at least once from 
estuaries of CA, OR, or WA exclusive of Puget Sound. Such broad latitudinal and 
estuarine distributions are suggestive of wide habitat tolerances. 


XXII 


Thirteen (1.2%) of the 1,108 identified species are nonindigenous, with another 
121 species classified as cryptogenic (of uncertain origin), and 208 species unclassified 
with respect to potential invasiveness. Despite uncertainties of classification, the 
number and densities of nonindigenous species appear to be much lower on the shelf 
than in the estuarine ecosystems of the Pacific Coast. Spionid polychaetes and the 
ampharetid polychaete Anobothrus gracilis were a major component of the 
nonindigenous species collected on the shelf. 

NOAA’s five NMSs along the West Coast of the U.S. appeared to be in good 
ecological condition, based on the measured indicators, with no evidence of major 
anthropogenic impacts or unusual environmental qualities compared to nearby non¬ 
sanctuary waters. Benthic communities in sanctuaries resembled those in 
corresponding non-sanctuary waters, with similarly high levels of species richness and 
diversity and low incidence of nonindigenous species. Most oceanographic features 
were also similar between sanctuary and non-sanctuary locations. Exceptions (e.g., 
higher concentrations of some nutrients in sanctuaries along the CA coast) appeared to 
be attributable to natural upwelling events in the area at the time of sampling. In 
addition, sediments within the sanctuaries were relatively uncontaminated, with none of 
the samples having any measured chemical in excess of ERM values. The ERL value 
for chromium was exceeded in sediments at the OCNMS, but at a much lower 
percentage of stations (four of 30) compared to WA and OR non-sanctuary areas (31 of 
70 stations). ERL values were exceeded for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 2- 
methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, total DDT, and 4,4-DDE at multiple 
sites within the CINMS. However, cases where total DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and chromium 
exceeded the ERL values were notably less prevalent at CINMS than in non-sanctuary 
waters of CA. In contrast, 2-methylnaphthalene above the ERL was much more 
prevalent in sediments at the CINMS compared to non-sanctuary waters off the coast of 
CA. While there are natural background sources of PAHs from oil seeps throughout the 
SCB, this does not explain the higher incidence of 2-methylnaphthalene contamination 
around CINMS. Two stations in CINMS also had levels of TOC (> 5%) potentially 
harmful to benthic fauna, though none of these sites exhibited symptoms of impaired 
benthic condition. 

This study showed no major evidence of extensive biological impacts linked to 
measured stressors. There were only two stations, both in CA, where low numbers of 
benthic species, diversity, or total faunal abundance co-occurred with high sediment 
contamination or low DO in bottom water. Such general lack of concordance suggests 
that these offshore waters are currently in good condition, with the lower-end values of 
the various biological attributes representing parts of a normal reference range 
controlled by natural factors. Results of multiple linear regression, performed using full 
model procedures to test for effects of combined abiotic environmental factors, 
suggested that latitude and depth had significant influences on benthic variables region¬ 
wide. Latitude had a significant inverse influence on all three of the above benthic 
variables, i.e. with values increasing as latitude decreased (p < 0.01), while depth had a 


XXIII 


significant direct influence on diversity (p < 0.001) and inverse effect on density (p 
<0.01). None of these variables varied significantly in relation to sediment % fines (at 
p< 0.1), although in general there was a tendency for muddier sediments (higher % 
fines) to have lower species richness and diversity and higher densities than coarser 
sediments. 

Alternatively, it is possible that for some of these sites the lower values of benthic 
variables reflect symptoms of disturbance induced by other unmeasured stressors. The 
indicators in this study included measures of stressors (e.g., chemical contaminants, 
eutrophication) that are often associated with adverse biological impacts in shallower 
estuarine and inland ecosystems. However, there may be other sources of human- 
induced stress in these offshore systems (e.g., bottom trawling) that pose greater risks 
to ambient living resources and which have not been captured. Future monitoring 
efforts in these offshore areas should include indicators of such alternative sources of 
disturbance. 


XXIV 


1.0 Introduction 


1.1 Program Background 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) both perform a broad range of research and 
monitoring activities to assess the status and potential effects of human activities on the 
health of coastal ecosystems and to promote the use of this information in protecting 
and restoring the Nation’s coastal resources. Authority to conduct such work is 
provided through several legislative mandates including the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 
1977 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.), National Coastal Monitoring Act (Title V of the Marine 
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2805), and the National 
Marine Sanctuary Act of 2000. Where possible the two agencies have sought to 
coordinate related activities through partnerships with states and other institutions to 
prevent duplications of effort and bring together complementary resources to fulfill 
common research and management goals. Accordingly, in summer 2003, NOAA, EPA, 
and partnering West Coast states — Washington (WA), Oregon (OR), and California 
(CA) — combined efforts to conduct a joint survey of ecological condition of aquatic 
resources in near-coastal waters along the U.S. western continental shelf using multiple 
indicators of ecological condition. The study is an expansion of EPA’s Environmental 
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and subsequent National Coastal 
Assessment (NCA), which seek to assess condition of the Nation’s environmental 
resources within a variety of coastal and terrestrial resource categories. The coastal 
component of EMAP/NCA on the West Coast of the U.S. began in 1999 with a focus in 
estuaries (see Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; Hayslip et al. 2006; Wilson and Partridge 2007; 
U.S. EPA 2001,2004, 2006). The current assessment, based on sampling conducted 
in summer 2003, extends this work to near-coastal shelf waters (depths of 30-120 m) 
from the Canadian to Mexican borders (see Figures 3.1.1 -3.1.9 below). 

A focus of the study was on the collection and analysis of water, sediment, and 
biological samples using standard methods and indicators applied in previous coastal 
EMAP/NCA projects (U.S. EPA 2001,2004; Nelson et al. 2004). A key feature was the 
incorporation of a stratified-random sampling design, with stations (257 total) stratified 
by State and National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) status. Each of the three states (WA, 
Oregon, California) was represented by at least 50 random stations. There also were a 
total of 84 random stations included within NOAA’s five NMSs along the West Coast. 
The probabilistic sampling design provided a basis for making unbiased statistical 
estimates of the spatial extent of ecological condition relative to various measured 
indicators and corresponding thresholds of concern. These included standard 
EMAP/NCA ecological indicators of water quality, sediment quality, and biological 
condition (benthic fauna and fish). 

Assessments of status relative to these various indicators are presented in the 
present report on a region-wide basis, by State, and by NMS vs. non-sanctuary status. 
The state-level information will be of value to EPA and the States in their efforts to meet 


1 


requirements under the CWA to report on the condition of each state’s aquatic 
resources. The information on the status of NMS resources, which has been derived 
from standard monitoring methods and indicators that allow comparisons to the 
surrounding regional ecosystem and across other sanctuaries as a system, helps to 
fulfill the needs of system-wide monitoring strategies for the NMS Program (NMSP 
2004) as well as related directives under the NMS Reauthorization Act of 2000. 
Moreover, because the protocols and indicators are consistent with those used in 
previous EMAP/NCA estuarine surveys, comparisons also can be made between 
conditions in offshore waters and those observed in neighboring estuarine habitats, thus 
providing a more holistic account of ecological conditions and processes throughout the 
inshore and offshore resources of the region. Such information should provide valuable 
input for future National Coastal Condition Reports, which historically have focused on 
estuaries (U.S. EPA 2001,2004). 

Lastly, results of this study should provide support to evolving interests within the 
U.S. and other parts of the world to move toward an ecosystem approach to 
management (EAM) of coastal resources (Murawski 2007; Marine Ecosystems and 
Management 2007). Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (lEAs) have been identified 
as an important component of an EAM strategy (Murawski and Menashes 2007, Levin 
et al. 2008). An IEA is a synthesis and quantitative analysis of information on relevant 
natural and socio-economic factors in relation to specified ecosystem management 
goals (Levin et al. 2008). Initial steps in the IEA process include the assessment of 
baseline conditions defining the status of the system as well as the assessment of 
stressor impacts and their links to source drivers and pressures. Results of the present 
study will be available to support such initial steps in the development of an IEA for the 
California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. While the focus of the present study is on 
indicators of ecological condition, limited socio-economic indicators have been included 
as well (e.g., fish contaminant levels, water clarity, marine debris), which can be used to 
help address some common human-dimension questions, such as “Are the fish safe to 
eat?” or “Is the water clean enough to swim in?” 

This assessment was made possible through the cooperation of numerous 
organizations. The project was funded principally by EPA (Office of Research and 
Development, ORD) and co-managed through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by 
staff from EPA/ORD and the NOAA National Ocean Service’s (NOS) National Centers 
for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS). NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation 
Operations provided three weeks of ship time on the NOAA Ship McARTHUR II, which 
supported the primary sampling effort conducted in June 2003 from the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca in Washington south to Pt. Conception, CA. The Northwest Fisheries Science 
Center (NWFSC), under NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), provided 
field support and analysis offish pathologies through a cooperative agreement with 
EPA. The NWFSC also supplemented the collection of fish samples for contaminant 
and pathology analysis through coordination of sampling conducted by their Fishery 
Resource Analysis and Monitoring (FRAM) Division at stations falling within the 
appropriate depth range during their annual west-coast groundfish surveys. State 


2 


partners included Washington Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality, and the Southern California Water Resources Research Project 
(SCCWRP). Additional field support was provided by scientists from the three State 
partners, EPA Region 10, EPA ORD, the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation, and South Slough Estuarine Research Reserve. 

The intent of the study design was to include continental shelf waters all along 
the West Coast of the U.S., from the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Washington to the 
Mexican border. The coordination of two separate survey efforts was necessary in 
order to cover such a large area. The first was the above-mentioned June 2003 cruise 
conducted from the NOAA Ship McARTHUR II, which covered sampling from the Strait 
of Juan de Fuca south to Pt. Conception, CA. This effort was coordinated with a 
companion assessment conducted by SCCWRP during the same general time-frame, in 
the area between Pt. Conception and the Mexican border, known as the Southern 
California Bight (SCB). The Bight ’03 assessment was conducted using a similar 
probabilistic sampling design and most of the same condition indicators (Allen et al. 
2007, Bay et al. 2005, Ranasinghe et al. 2007, Schiff et al. 2006), and thus the data 
could be integrated with data from the more northern stations to provide an overall 
assessment of condition throughout the western U.S. continental shelf. 

1.2 NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries 

There are currently four NMSs along the coast of California, one off the coast of 
Washington, and none off the coast of Oregon. All of the West Coast NMSs represent 
areas particularly rich in a diverse array of marine life, including marine mammals, 
seabirds, fishes, invertebrates and plants. The Channel Islands NMS off the coast of 
California is the oldest, established in 1980, and covers an area of 4,294 km 2 
surrounding the islands of Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel and Santa 
Barbara out to six nautical miles offshore around each of the five islands. The Gulf of 
the Farallones NMS (3,237 km 2 ) and Cordell Bank NMS (1347 km 2 ) are adjacent to 
each other and located along the central California coast off San Francisco. The Gulf of 
the Farallones NMS was established in 1981 and includes the Farallon Islands National 
Wildlife Refuge. Cordell Bank NMS, established in 1989, includes Cordell Bank 
seamount whose summit lies only 37 meters below the surface. The Monterey Bay 
NMS is the most recently established NMS in California (1992), and is also the largest 
on the West Coast. It extends from Rocky Point in Marin County to Cambria in San Luis 
Obispo County, a shoreline length of 444 km and encompasses 13,784 km 2 of ocean. 

To the north, the Olympic Coast NMS was established in 1994 and protects 
about 8,570 km 2 of the Pacific Ocean between Cape Flattery and the mouth of the 
Copalis River, a distance of about 217 km. Some 105 km of the sanctuary's coastline 
borders the Olympic National Park, while the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, and 
Copalis Rock National Wildlife Refuges are within the sanctuary boundaries. Maps of 
each of the West Coast NMS may be found at: 
http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pgallery/atlasmaps/welcome.html. 


3 


1.3 Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program 

In response to the need for an integrated assessment of the condition of the 
southern California coastal ocean, SCCWRP brought together 58 organizations in the 
summer of 2003 to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the ecological condition of 
the SCB. This study, known as Bight’03, was the third regional-scale assessment of the 
SCB by SCCWRP, following earlier related efforts in 1994 and 1998. There also have 
been older studies of the benthic fauna of shelf, slope, and basin habitats throughout 
the SCB conducted by other investigators (Jones 1969, Fauchald and Jones 1978). 

The spatial extent of the SCCWRP-related regional assessments ranged from Pt. 
Conception in the north to the Mexican border. During the 2003 effort, sampling was 
extended to include estuaries and continental slope and basin areas down to a depth of 
1,000 m. Bight’03 included three components: Coastal Ecology, Shoreline 
Microbiology and Water Quality. Shoreline microbiology was not a part of the scope of 
the EMAP study. The Water Quality component of Bight’03 (Nezlin et al. 2007) was 
focused on examination of the effects of storm water runoff on the SCB. Sampling did 
not fall within the EMAP index period and was designed to address a different set of 
research questions, and thus data collected under this component could not be 
integrated with the EMAP assessment. However, water quality data from some stations 
within the SCB were collected by SCCWRP under a cooperative agreement with EPA. 
The Coastal Ecology Component of Bight'03 assessed sediment contaminants and the 
effect of these contaminants on biota in the SCB, and analyzed a set of contaminants 
that were virtually the same as those assessed in the EMAP program (Ranasinghe et al. 
2007). 


4 


2.0 Methods 


Methods for the 2003 survey of condition of the continental shelf of the West 
Coast were in general the same as those developed for the EPA National Coastal 
Assessment (Nelson et al. 2004), with modifications to reflect the generally deeper 
nature of the resource being assessed. 

Sampling for a major portion of the survey area (Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA, to 
Point Conception, CA) was conducted on NOAA Ship McARTHUR II Cruise AR-03-01- 
NC, June 1-26, 2003 (Cooksey 2003). The cruise consisted of three legs: Leg 1 along 
the Washington coast (Seattle to Astoria, OR, June 1-8); Leg 2 along the Oregon coast 
(Astoria, OR to Eureka, CA, June 8-16); and Leg 3 along the California coast, from the 
Oregon border to Pt. Conception (Eureka, CA to Pt. Conception and back to San 
Francisco, CA, June 18-26). Samples were collected from the deck of the McARTHUR 
II during around-the-clock operations. 

At each station, samples were obtained for characterization of: 1) community 
structure and composition of benthic macroinfauna (fauna retained on a 1.0-mm sieve); 
2) concentration of chemical contaminants in sediments (metals, pesticides, PCBs, 
PAHs); 3) general habitat conditions (water depth, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, 
temperature, chlorophyll a, light transmittance, water-column nutrients, % silt-clay 
versus sand content of sediment, organic-carbon content of sediment); and 4) condition 
of selected demersal fish species caught by hook-and-line (contaminant body burdens 
and visual evidence of pathological disorders). 

2.1 Sampling Design 

2.1.1 EMAP 

A major target to be assessed was the soft-sediment benthic resources and 
overlying water quality of the continental shelf, in the depth range between 30 and 120 
m, from the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Washington to the Mexican border. Given the high 
cost of research ship time and the desire to insure that attempts at sampling rocky 
bottoms were minimized, considerable effort was taken to develop a GIS data layer of 
only soft sediment habitat. No comprehensive bottom type map of the continental shelf 
of West Coast existed at the time of this study, although data were provided by several 
individuals at research institutions that were developing such maps under NOAA 
funding. An attempt was also made to obtain the general locations of commercial 
submarine cable crossings, and these zones, along with high activity shipping channels 
and other restricted access regions were omitted from the GIS layer defining the target 
resource area. 

The study utilized a stratified random sampling design, known as a Generalized 
Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) survey design. The EMAP/NCA sampling effort 
consisted of a total of 150 stations that were distributed across the sampling area, 
partitioned in several ways. Each of the three states received 50 stations. In 


5 


Washington, the 50 stations were partitioned into 30 stations randomly selected within 
the Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS), and 20 stations in the remainder of the shelf waters. 
Similarly, in California, the 50 stations were partitioned into two groups consisting of 30 
stations randomly selected within the combined area of the Cordell Bank, Gulf of 
Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands NMSs, and 20 stations selected in non¬ 
sanctuary waters of California north of Pt. Conception. 

Each sampling region is termed a multi-density category. For each multi-density 
category (Appendix Table 1), geographic coordinates for the number of primary target 
stations listed above were determined during the study design process. Additionally, 
each multi-density category had an equal number of alternate sampling locations 
selected in case a primary site should have to be rejected due to safety concerns or the 
presence of rocky bottom. Because of the severe logistic constraint of the number of 
ship days available, when a primary station was abandoned, the nearest alternate 
station within the multi-density category was selected and sampling was attempted. 

After completion of the field survey, additional adjustments to the frame area 
definitions were made. For the present report, the principal adjustment was to exclude 
the area of the continental shelf within the Strait of Juan de Fuca from inclusion in the 
resource definition. This decision was made because all bottom samples attempted at 
multiple stations found rocky instead of soft bottom, indicating that the region may not fit 
the target resource definition of soft sediment shelf habitat. Thus, weighting factors 
used in data analysis reflect the removal of this sample area. 

2.1.2 Bight’03 

Data coverage throughout the SCB portion of the study area (Pt. Conception, CA 
to the Mexican border) was made possible through coordination with a companion 
assessment, the Bight’03 study conducted by SCCWRP. The basic sampling design of 
the Bight’03 study was the same as that used for the EMAP survey. Sampling sites 
were selected in a stratified random fashion in 12 multi-density categories that 
represented distinct regions of interest within the SCB using a Generalized Random 
Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (Ranasinghe et al. 2007). There was overlap with 
the target depth zone sampled by EMAP for two Bight’03 multi-density categories. 

Given the identical design approaches, data from Bight’03 for these two categories 
could be merged with EMAP data into a single statistical analysis for the West Coast 
shelf. Geographic coordinates for the Bight’03 stations which were included with the 
EMAP stations in the present analysis are provided in Appendix 1. Inspection of depth 
information was used to confirm that Bight’03 stations actually fell within the target 
depth range of the EMAP study, and some stations included in a multi-density category 
in the Bight’03 study were excluded from inclusion with the EMAP data. A total of 30 
stations within the Channel Islands NMS and 43 stations along the mainland shelf fell 
with the EMAP target depth zone of 30-120 m. The list of water column parameters 
measured varied considerably among these stations and rarely comprised the full list of 
parameters measured by the EMAP study. 


6 


2.1.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey 

Samples from the West Coast Groundfish Surveys conducted by the Fisheries 
Resource Analysis and Monitoring (FRAM) Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science 
Center (NWFSC) of NOAA were used to supplement the pool of samples available for 
tissue-contaminant body-burden analysis. FRAM surveys began in 1998 and by 2003 
had adopted a probability-based sampling design. However the design could not be 
readily integrated into that used by EMAP/NCA. The FRAM groundfish-survey area 
included depths from 30 fathoms (55m) to 700 fathoms (1287m) and was partitioned by 
International North Pacific Fishing Commission zones. Therefore, a GIS coverage of 
groundfish-survey sample locations was created, and the EMAP/NCA sample frame 
defining the region between 30 and 120 m was overlaid on this GIS data layer. A target 
sample number of 50 groundfish sites per state was established. In Oregon and 
Washington, only 28 and 21 stations, respectively, met the EMAP/NCA depth criterion, 
and thus all available sites were selected. In California, a subset of 50 sites was 
randomly selected from the list of 78 sites within the depth range. Fish from 63 sites 
were initially selected for contaminant analysis, but data from three of these sites were 
subsequently excluded from data analysis because the sites were greater than 120 m in 
depth. Sites from which fish were analyzed for contaminants are shown in Figs. 3.1.6- 
3.1.9 and are listed in Appendix Table 2. 

2.2 Water Column Sampling 

Vertical water-column profiles of conductivity, temperature, chlorophyll a 
concentration, transmissivity, dissolved oxygen, and depth were obtained with a Sea- 
Bird Electronics Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) data sonde unit with additional 
sensors (Table 2.2.1). The unit was a SBE 9Plus with an 11 Plus deck unit to provide 
real-time data supplied by the NOAA Ship McARTHUR II. Supplemental sensors were 
supplied by Washington DOE. The unit was also equipped with 12 Niskin water sample 
bottles to acquire discrete water samples at three designated water depths: 0.5 m below 
sea surface, mid-water column, and near the seabed (Figure 2.2.1). In practice, the 
near-surface samples were collected from just below the surface to a depth of 5.3 m. 
Continuous profiles of conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a 
(fluorometer), transmissivity, and depth were recorded during the descent and ascent of 
the unit. Discrete water samples were processed for nutrients, total suspended solids 
(TSS), and chlorophyll a. For nutrients and chlorophyll a, only surface values are 
reported since this is the region of the water column most likely to be affected by 
anthropogenic influences. For temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, transmissivity 
and TSS, only surface and bottom values are reported, since these values typically 
provide the maximum range of values within a station. Data for all three depths for all 
variables are included in the study database and are available on request from the 
authors. 

In the assessment of estuarine waters in the NCA program, light availability in the 
water column was evaluated using either Secchi depth or water column 


7 


photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) measured with PAR sensors. For the 
Western NCA, the vertical profile PAR data were used to calculate an estimate of the 
percent transmittance of incident PAR at a reference depth of 1 m (Nelson et al. 2005) 
In the present study, a transmissometer attached to the CTD was used to measure in 
situ light attenuation. The instrument measured the percentage of light that reached a 
receiver with a narrow field of view at 25 cm from a light source generating a narrow 
beam. Transmissivity and percent transmittance of PAR are not directly comparable 
measurements. 



Figure 2.2.1. CTD and Niskin bottle rosette sampler on the deck of the NOAA Ship 

mcarthur ii. 


The CTD was lowered into the water until it was completely submerged and held 
just below the surface for three minutes, allowing the water pump to purge any air in the 
system. The unit was then returned to the sea surface to begin the profile, and lowered 
slowly to the bottom at approximately 0.8 m s' 1 , held near the seabed for one minute, 
and then recovered at a similar velocity. To prevent the equipment from hitting the 
seabed due to wave motion, the maximum depth to which the CTD was lowered was 
generally about 3-8 m above the bottom. 


8 





Table 2.2.1. Equipment used for hydrographic profile measurements. 


Parameter 

CTD or Sensor 

Salinity 

Sea-Bird Electronics SBE 9Plus 

Derived from conductivity (CTD) 

Temperature 

Sea-Bird Electronics SBE 9Plus 

Dissolved oxygen 

Sea-Bird Electronics SBE-43 sensor 

Chlorophyll-a fluorescence 

WET Labs WETStar fluorometer 

Transmissivity 

WET Labs C-Star transmissometer 


2.3 Biological and Sediment Sampling 

Sediment sampling was undertaken using a custom-designed Van Veen grab 
(Figure 2.3.1). The sampling device is composed of two 0.1-m 2 samplers, joined 
together in a single frame. The unit was 60 inches high, 42 inches in diameter and 
weighed 450 pounds with its full complement of four, 50-pound, stainless-steel weights. 
Sample material obtained by the grabs was used for analysis of macroinfaunal 
communities, concentration of sediment contaminants, % silt-clay, and organic-carbon 
content. Three grab samples were required at the majority of stations to acquire 
adequate sediment (approximately 2 L) for both benthic infauna (one grab) and 
chemistry sample processing. A grab sample was deemed successful when the grab 
unit was > 75% full (with no major slumping). The benthic samples were sieved 
onboard through 1.0-mm (WA and OR stations), or through nested 0.5-mm and 1.0-mm 
screens (CA stations), and preserved in 10% buffered formalin. Fauna from California 
stations retained in the 0.5-1.0 mm sieve fraction were processed as part of a 
supplemental study and are not considered in this report. Thus all benthic data reported 
here pertain to the > 1.0-mm fraction. 

2.3.1 Sediment Pollutant and Tissue Analysis 

Sediments and fish tissues were analyzed for a suite of organic pollutants and 
metals (Table 2.3.1) using analytical methods from the NOAA NS&T Program 
(Lauenstein and Cantillo 1993) or described in the EMAP Laboratory Methods Manual 
(U.S. EPA 1994). For all three states, 15 metals were analyzed in sediments and 13 
metals were analyzed in whole-body fish tissues. Antimony and manganese were 
analyzed in tissue samples from California and Washington. A total of 21 PCB 
congeners (PCBs), DDT and its primary metabolites, 14 chlorinated pesticides, and 23 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were analyzed in sediments from all three 
states (Table 2.3.1). The same suite of chlorinated compounds was analyzed in fish 
tissue except that hexachlorobenzene was not analyzed in samples from California. 
PAHs were measured in tissues from California and Washington and are not reported 
here. Total organic carbon and percent fines of the sediment were analyzed in samples 
from all sites. 


9 












Table 2.3.1. Compounds analyzed in sediments and fish tissues in the West Coast 
Shelf Assessment. All compounds were analyzed in all three states in both 
sediment and fish with the exceptions that PAHs, antimony and manganese were 
analyzed in fish tissues only in California and Washington, and 
hexachlorobenzene was not analyzed in fish tissues in California. 


Polycyclic Aromatic 
Hydrocarbons 
(PAHs) 


PCB Congeners 
(Congener Number and 
Compound) 

DDT and Other 
Chlorinated 
Pesticides 

Metals and 
Misc. 

Low Molecular Weiaht 

8: 

2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl 

DDTs 

Metals 

PAHs 

18 

2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl 

2,4’-DDD 

Aluminum 

1 -methylnaphthalene 

28 

2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl 

4,4'-DDD 

Antimony 

1 -methylphenanthrene 

44 

2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

2,4-DDE 

Arsenic 

2-methylnaphthalene 

52 

2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

4,4'-DDE 

Cadmium 

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 

66 

2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

2,4'-DDT 

Chromium 

2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene 

77 

3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

4,4'-DDT 

Copper 

Acenaphthene 

101 

: 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl 


Iron 

Acenaphthylene 

105 

: 2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl 

Cyclopentadienes 

Lead 

Anthracene 

110 

: 2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl 

Aldrin 

Manganese 

Biphenyl 

118 

: 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl 

Dieldrin 

Mercury 

Dibenzothiophene 

126 

: 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl 

Endrin 

Nickel 

Fluorene 

128 

: 2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl 


Selenium 

Naphthalene 


(CA as 128/266) 

Chlordanes 

Silver 

Phenanthrene 

138 

: 2,2\3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl 

Alpha-Chlordane 

Tin 


153 

: 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl 

Heptachlor 

Zinc 

Hiqh Molecular Weiaht 

170: 2,2 , 1 3,3\4,4’ 1 5-heptachlorobiphenyl 

Heptachlor Epoxide 


PAHs 

180: 2,2\3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl 

Trans-Nonachlor 


Benz(a)anthracene 

187: 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl 


Miscellaneous 

Benzo(a)pyrene 

195: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl 

Others 

Total Organic 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 

206: 2,2' 1 3,3',4,4',5,5' 1 6- 

Endosulfan 1 

Carbon 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 

nonachlorobiphenyl 

Endosulfan II 

Percent Fines 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 

209 

2 1 2'3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6 

Endosulfan Sulfate 


Chrysene 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 
Fluoranthene 
lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 
Pyrene 

decachlorobiphenyl 

Hexachlorobenzene 
Lindane (gamma-BHC) 
Mi rex 

Toxaphene 



10 





















Figure 2.3.1. Close-up view of double Van Veen grab sampler used for bottom 
sampling. 


2.4 Fish Tissue 

2.4.1 EMAP 

The NOAA Ship McARTHUR II had only recently entered service and was not yet 
fitted out to conduct trawl operations at the time of the EMAP/NCA Assessment. 

Instead, hook-and-line fishing methods (Figure 2.4.1) were used in an effort to capture 
bottom fish for inspection of external pathologies and for subsequent analysis of 
chemical contaminants in tissues of selected species. Any captured fish were identified 
and inspected for gross external pathologies. Selected species, primarily the Pacific 
sanddab (Citharichthys sordid us), also were frozen for subsequent chemical 
contaminant body-burden analysis. Water depths less than 80 m were generally fished 
quite easily with hook-and-line. Fishing at night, in high currents and in deeper water 
depths was difficult and was often unproductive. In particular, during the California leg 
of the cruise, high winds and seas physically hindered the ability to keep fishing gear on 
the bottom at many stations. 

2.4.2 Bight’03 

While a variety offish studies were conducted as part of Bight’03 (Allan et al. 
2007), there were no collections of benthic fish species for tissue contaminant analysis. 


11 







Figure 2.4.1. Hook-and-line fishing for fish tissue sampling aboard the NOAA ship 

mcarthur ii. 


2.4.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey 

At the FRAM sites, bottom trawl operations were conducted by commercial 
fishing vessels chartered by NOAA. GPS and net-mounted sensors recorded time 
series of position, depth, temperature, and net dimension readings during trawling and 
other environmental observations were collected manually. At the conclusion of each 
trawl operation, species composition, fish sex, length, weight and other observations 
were gathered either manually or by various electronic equipment. Fish were frozen on 
board and transferred to EPA or state partners for analysis offish-tissue contaminants. 

2.5 Quality Assurance 

2.5.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses 

The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for the NCA-West 
program is defined by the “Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 
(EMAP): National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001-2004" 

(U.S. EPA 2001). A performance-based approach is used which, depending upon the 
compound, includes: 1) continuous laboratory evaluation through the use of Certified 
Reference Materials (CRMs), Laboratory Control Materials (LCMs), or Standard 
Reference Material (SRM); 2) laboratory spiked sample matrices; 3) laboratory reagent 

12 


blanks; 4) calibration standards; 5) analytical surrogates; and 6) laboratory and field 
replicates. The objective of this performance-based approach is to assist the 
laboratories in meeting desired Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) as defined in the EMAP 
Quality Assurance Project Plan (U.S. EPA 2001). 

A measure of whether the analytical procedure is sufficient to detect the analytes 
at environmental levels of concern is the Method Detection Limits (MDLs). Approved 
laboratories were expected to perform in general agreement with the target MDLs 
presented for NCA analytes (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA 2001). Because of analytical 
uncertainties close to the MDL, there is greater confidence with concentrations above 
the Reporting Limit (RL), which is the concentration of a substance in a matrix that can 
be reliably quantified during routine laboratory operations. Typically, RLs are 3-5 times 
the MDL. In these analyses, concentrations between the MDL and the RL were 
included in the calculation of the means or cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), 
while values below the MDL were set to zero. 

One measure of accuracy of the analytical procedure is the “relative accuracy,” 
which is based on computing the percent deviation of the laboratory’s value from the 
true or “accepted” values in CRMs, LCMs, or SRMs. The requirements for PAHs, 

PCBs, and pesticides are that the “Lab’s value should be within ± 30% of true value on 
average for all analytes, not to exceed ± 35% of true value for more than 30% of 
individual analytes” (U.S. EPA 2001). For metals and other inorganic compounds, the 
laboratory's value for each analyte should be within ± 20% of the true value of the CRM, 
LCM, or SRM. Another measure of accuracy is the percent recovery from matrix 
spikes. High percent recoveries in matrix spikes indicate that the analytical method and 
instruments can adequately quantify the analyte but do not evaluate the ability of the 
analytical procedure to extract the compound from natural tissue or sediment matrices. 
Measures of precision are the “relative percent differences” (RPD) or coefficient of 
variation (CV) of replicate samples, with the objective that the RPD or CV should be 
<30%. 


A post-analysis assessment of the success of the analytical laboratories in 
meeting NCA QA/QC requirements was conducted by the QA manager of the Western 
Ecology Division. The percent recovery from certified/standard materials, recovery from 
matrix spikes, and the average RPD for non-zero sample replicates and matrix spikes 
are given in Appendix Tables 3a - 3c and summarized here. 

2.5.2 Metals in Sediments 

The recommended MDL (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) varies by metal, ranging 
from 0.01 pg/g for mercury to 1500 pg/g for aluminum. The MDLs for metals in 
sediment were met by each state with the following exceptions. Oregon had a MDL for 
antimony of 0.3 pg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 0.2 pg/g. Washington 
had a MDL for selenium of 0.84 pg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 0.1 
pg/g. Oregon had a MDL for tin of 0.5 pg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 


13 


0.1 |jg/g. Washington had a high MDL for tin (20 |jg/g) however due to the method of 
calculating the MDL for this compound the RL (0.2 pg/g ) was lower than the MDL and 
close to the recommended detection level of 0.1 pg/g. 

California and Oregon met all the DQOs for the average deviation for all 
sediment metals, deviations for the individual metals, and for precision. California had a 
low accuracy for silver while Oregon had a low accuracy for tin. Washington met the 
precision and the matrix spike recovery DQOs for all metals. However, the average 
deviation for the 15 metals in Washington was 29.8%, exceeding the DQO of an 
average of 20% for metals. Failure to meet this DQO was due to the high deviance 
(>90%) for arsenic, selenium, and tin, and values for these metals should be interpreted 
cautiously for samples from Washington. 

2.5.3 Organics in Sediments 

The recommended MDLs (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) are 10 ng/g for PAHs 
and 1 ng/g for PCBs, DDTs, and chlorinated pesticides. All three states met the MDL 
requirements for all the organic compounds with the exception of toxaphene in 
California which had a MDL of 10 ng/g. With the exception of PCBs for one of two 
standards used by Washington, all three states met the DQOs for recovery from matrix 
spikes and for precision for all the organic compounds. 

In terms of accuracy, California met the DQOs that the average deviation for all 
PCBs was within ±30% of the average value within the standard reference material as 
well as that 70% of the individual PCB congeners were measured within ±35% of the 
true values. Washington failed to meet the recommended average deviation from 
reference materials of <30% for PCBs. The major factor driving this failure was PCB 
congener 105 which had a percent deviation of 192%. When all the PCB congeners are 
considered, 83% of the individual congeners were within ±35% of true values. Oregon 
accuracy for PCBs was not as high as the other two states, with an average difference 
between the reported PCB values and the certified values of 115% or 71% if PCB 170 is 
excluded. Only three of the 19 PCB congeners were within ±35% of true value in the 
standards even though recoveries were high in the matrix spikes. In analyzing the 
sediment PCB data, the Oregon data should be interpreted cautiously as should the 
PCB 105 data from Washington. 

Both California and Oregon met the accuracy DQOs for sediment DDTs, though 
Oregon had poor accuracy with 2,4'-DDE. In Washington, all three of the DDTs 
measured in the standard reference material exceeded the value in the standard by 
>50%. In analyzing the sediment DDT data, the Washington values should be 
interpreted cautiously 

The standard reference materials used by the three states did not contain most 
of the non-DDT pesticides, so that it was necessary to use the recoveries in the matrix 
spikes as a measure of accuracy. In California, all the recoveries from the spiked matrix 


14 


was within 2-12% of the true value while in Oregon 10 of the 12 non-DDT pesticides 
were within ±35% of the value in the spiked matrix. Accuracy was not as good in 
Washington with 7 of the 12 pesticides within ±35% of the spiked value. Because 
recoveries from a spiked matrix is not as rigorous an evaluation of accuracy as those 
derived from natural matrices, small differences in concentrations should not be over 
interpreted. 

California met the accuracy DQOs for sediment PAHs. In Oregon, the average 
percent deviation from the true value for PAHs was 40% compared to the DQO of 30%. 
Eight of the 20 PAHs measured in the reference material deviated from the true values 
by > 35%, though only benzo(b)fluoranthene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene showed 
deviations > 50%. Washington also failed to meet the overall standard, with an average 
percent deviation for all PAHs of 44%. Nine of the 23 PAHs measured in Washington 
deviated by > 35% from the true value, with 6 of these compounds deviating by > 50% 
(2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene, 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene, acenaphthylene, 
benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, dibenzothiophene). The PAH data 
should be interpreted with consideration that Oregon and Washington did not achieve 
the average overall DQOs for PAHs and, in particular, data for compounds deviating by 
> 50% should be interpreted cautiously. 

2.5.4 Metals in Tissue 

The recommended MDL (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) in tissue varies by 
metal, ranging from 0.01 pg/g for mercury to 50 pg/g for iron and zinc. All three states 
met the MDL recommendations for metals in tissue with the following exceptions: at 
0.015 pg/g, Oregon’s MDL for mercury was slightly higher than the recommended 
detection of 0.01 pg/g. Both Oregon and Washington exceeded the recommended MDL 
for tin of 0.05 pg/g with detection limits of 0.15 pg/g and 0.2 - 0.22 pg/g respectively. All 
three states met the requirement for precision. Oregon and Washington met the DQO 
that recovery of metals from matrix spikes should be in the range of 50%-120% of the 
spiked concentration. However, California did not conduct any matrix spikes with 
tissues. In terms of accuracy, all three states met the average and individual DQOs, 
though the Washington standard reference material contained only 7 of the 13 metals. 

2.5.5 Organics in Tissue 

The recommended MDLs (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) in tissue are 2.0 ng/g 
for both PCBs and the chlorinated pesticides. All three states met the MDL 
recommendations for organics in tissues with the following exceptions: Oregon had a 
MDL of 20 ng/g for endosulfan I, endosulfan II, and endosulfan sulfate. Oregon had a 
MDL of 200 ng/g for toxaphene while California had a detection limit of 10 ng/g. Oregon 
had a detection limit of 10 ng/g for endrin. All three states met the requirement for 
precision that the average RPD or CV for PCBs and pesticides in replicate samples be 
<30%. Oregon and Washington met the DQO that recovery of PCBs and pesticides 
from matrix spikes should be in the range of 50%-120% of the spiked concentration. 


15 


However, California did not conduct any matrix spikes with tissues. 

In terms of accuracy, California met the DQOs that the average deviation for all 
PCBs was within ±30% of the average value within the standard material as well as that 
70% of the individual PCB congeners were measured within ±35% of true value. Both 
Washington and Oregon failed the DQO that the average deviation for the PCBs should 
be within ±30% of the average value in the standard. Additionally, only 3 of the 17 PCB 
congeners measured in Oregon and none of the 10 congeners measured in Washington 
were within ±35% of the value in the standard. Because of this low accuracy when 
assessed with standard reference materials, the tissue PCB data from Oregon and 
Washington need to be interpreted cautiously. 

In both California and Oregon, the average percent deviation of the four DDTs 
measured in the reference material was less than or equal to the DQO of 30%. 

However, the value for 4,4'-DDE in Oregon differed from the reference material by 
>50%. In comparison, all four of the DDTs measured in Washington deviated from the 
standard reference material by >_63%. Because of the low accuracy when assessed 
with standard reference materials, the tissue DDT data from Washington and the 
Oregon 4,4'-DDE values should be interpreted cautiously. 

California analyzed only two of the 14 non-DDT pesticides in the standard 
reference material and did not conduct matrix spikes with tissues as an alternate 
demonstration of recovery. Accuracy for the compounds measured in the reference 
material (dieldrin and trans-nonachlor) was good; however without values for the other 
pesticides it is not possible to assess the overall accuracy for the non-DDT pesticides in 
California. Washington and Oregon measured most of the non-DDT pesticides in either 
their reference material and/or in a spiked matrix. Average deviation for the pesticides 
in both states failed the DQO and deviations for most individual pesticides were > 35% 
from the reference material or the spiked matrix. Because of the uncertain accuracy in 
the California tissue values and the low accuracy in Oregon and Washington, the tissue 
values for the non-DDT pesticides should be used cautiously. 


2.6 Statistical Data Analyses 

The use of a probability-based sampling design allows the development of 
estimates of the extent of area, with 95% confidence intervals, of the West Coast Shelf 
resource (30 - 120 m) corresponding to any specified value of the measured indicator. 
Analysis of indicator data was conducted by calculation of cumulative distribution 
functions (CDFs), an analysis approach that has been used extensively in other 
EMAP/NCA coastal studies (Summers et al. 1993, Strobel et al. 1995, Hyland et al. 
1996, U.S. EPA 2004, 2006). A detailed discussion of methods for calculation of the 
CDFs used in EMAP analyses is provided in Diaz-Ramos et al. (1996). Results of the 
CDF analysis are presented in the present report primarily as the values of an indicator 
which correspond to given percentiles of the cumulative distribution. Where known 


16 


thresholds of concern exist, e.g. dissolved oxygen concentration < 2.3 mg/L, percentiles 
are reported for such values. Where thresholds of concern have not been developed, 
e.g., the benthic variables, indicator values that represent common reporting values for 
frequency distributions (e.g., the median, 90 th percentile, upper and lower quartiles), are 
presented. Data presented graphically in this report are primarily in the form of CDFs, 
pie charts, and simple bar graphs representing the mean +1 standard deviation of the 
indicator values. 

2.7 Sampling, Data Integration, and Data Quality Issues 

The initial effort to develop a sampling frame representing only soft-sediment 
areas of the West Coast was generally a success, and a limited number of stations 
within the EMAP cruise effort had to be abandoned as a result of encountering rocky 
bottom. Primarily this occurred in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Section 2.1 above), and 
the frame definition was adjusted a posteriori to remove this area. There were two 
additional stations abandoned on the Washington shelf, no stations were abandoned on 
the Oregon shelf, and two stations were abandoned on the California shelf as a result of 
encountering rocky bottom. All abandoned stations were replaced with alternate 
stations from the initial sampling design. 

During the Oregon leg of the EMAP cruise, there were malfunctions of the CTD 
sensors which affected data for temperature, salinity, depth, and dissolved oxygen at 
numerous stations on the Oregon shelf. Questionable data due to equipment 
malfunction were flagged in the database and removed from data analyses. All Oregon 
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) data were flagged as questionable and removed from 
analyses. Filters for TSS appear to have been inadequately washed to remove salt 
crystals. 

While the Bight ’03 and NCA-West/EMAP studies were both designed as 
probability-based surveys, and the initial presumption was that data could be easily 
merged, the studies were executed and managed separately, and some data integration 
and compatibility issues arose as a result. For example, water-column nutrient samples 
were not collected at all Bight ’03 stations within the target depth range for the NCA- 
West/EMAP survey. For those samples collected, only nitrate and nitrite were 
analyzed, whereas the NCA-West/EMAP samples were analyzed for nitrate, nitrite and 
ammonium, and thus the studies were not directly comparable for total dissolved 
nitrogen. Tissue contaminant samples of demersal fishes were generally not collected 
under the Bight ’03 program. In the case of some multi-density categories, the Bight ’03 
program was unable to sample the target number of primary stations called for in the 
sample design, and no alternate stations were occupied. Thus the multi-density 
category weights for the data analysis were adjusted based on the actual number of 
stations occupied. 


17 


3.0. Results and Discussion 


Presentation of results for individual indicators utilizes cumulative distribution 
functions (CDFs) representing the percentage area of the sample frame associated with 
given values of the indicator. In the case of some parameters, estimates of the 
percentage of shelf area above or below published benchmark values of the indicator 
are also presented. For example, estimates are made of the percentage of area having 
sediment contaminants in excess of corresponding Effects Range Median (ERM) or 
Effects Range Low (ERL) sediment quality guideline values of Long et al. (1995) where 
such values are available (see Section 3.2.2). In other cases where there are no 
relevant benchmarks available from the literature, common statistical percentiles (e.g., 
50 th , 90 th , upper and lower quartiles) are used to assist in the interpretation of spatial 
patterns. 

3.1 Sampling Locations 

A total of 146 stations from Cape Flattery, WA, to Pt. Conception, CA were 
successfully sampled as part of Cruise AR-03-01-NC (Figures 3.1.1- 3.1.5, Appendix 
Table 1). Data from one additional station off Santa Catalina Island that was a part of 
the NCA continental shelf assessment design were also provided by SCCWRP. An 
additional three stations within the NCA that were within the Channel Islands could not 
be sampled because of rocky bottom and were abandoned. Data from fifty stations 
were obtained within Washington waters. Data from fifty stations were also obtained 
within Oregon waters, although a sample for sediment infauna was not obtained at 
Station OR03-0010. Data from forty-seven stations were obtained in California waters 
(46 north of Pt. Conception and one off Santa Catalina Island). Although there was 
some evidence of washing of the sediments from the infaunal sample at Station CA03- 
0140, the data were included in the analyses. Of those 147 stations, 57 occurred within 
National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) boundaries, including 30 in the Olympic Coast NMS, 
12 in the Gulf of Farallones NMS, 14 in Monterey Bay NMS, and one in Cordell Bank 
NMS. 


A total of 110 additional stations were successfully sampled for some or all of the 
NCA parameters within the target depth range by participants in the Bight ’03 survey. 
These stations were located within the Channel Islands NMS (27 stations) and 
throughout the SCB (83 stations, Figures 3.1.5). The 83 stations were distributed in five 
multi-density categories that were part of the Bight ’03 survey design, with sample 
numbers per category ranging from 6 to 29 (Appendix Table 1). Rocky bottom was 
prevalent in the Channel Islands NMS and many stations in the original sampling design 
could not be sampled. 

Fish from a total of 91 stations within Washington, Oregon, and California waters 
(Fig. 3.1.6- 3.1.9) were collected for EPA for fish tissue contaminants as part of 
NOAA’s FRAM Groundfish survey. Due to resource limitations, samples from 63 
stations were actually analyzed, while three of these stations were excluded when they 


18 


were found to have been sampled outside the target depth range (Appendix Table 2). 



WA 


0 50100 200 Miles 


2003 NCA Shelf Assessment Stations 

• Outside NMS Boundaries 

• Gulf of Farallones NMS 

• Monterey Bay NMS 

• Cordell Bank NMS 

• Olympic Coast NMS 

2003 Southern CA Bight Assessment Stations 

• Bight ’03 

• Channel Islands NMS 


Figure 3.1.1. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 

Assessment. Data from stations sampled as part of the Bight ’03 program that 
were within the target depth range were included in the NCA analyses. All 
stations within the Channel Islands were sampled by participants in the Bight ’03 
program. 


19 









Figure 3.1.2. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 

Assessment along the continental shelf of Washington, showing stations within or 
outside of the Olympic Coast NMS. Numbers are the last 4 digits of the EMAP 
Station ID (Appendix Table 1). 


20 










Figure 3.1.3. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 

Assessment along the continental shelf of Oregon. Numbers are the last 4 digits 
of the EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 1). 


21 








Figure 3.1.4. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf 

Assessment along the continental shelf of California north of Pt. Conception. The 
region includes three NMS. Numbers are the last 4 digits of the EMAP Station ID 
(Appendix Table 1). 


22 







CD 



0 

03 _g 

I? 

0 

C 

O CD 

° =6 

CD ^ 


g> 03 
_0 0 
03 4= 


03 


C 0 
0 

0 52 

CO Q) 
0 .Q 

0 C 
0 C 

< = 


0 

^ |> 

to CO 

O .5 

o E 

to >P 
03 

> CJ 

£ c 

O 1- 

o 0 

CM £ 

< 13 

o ° 

^ C 0 
0 


0 


g 3 

O C 

•4= o 

CD ^ 

^ 0 
CD O 

C c 

— o 

E ^ 

CD rC" 
0 LL 
>4— M ~ 

O O 
C £ 

o D 

~ O 
-Q 

■C .CD 

0 E 

° i 

LO 0 

^ 0 

CO o 

0 

i_ 

13 


CO 


EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 1). 








Figure 3.1.6. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA. 


24 


























Figure 3.1.7. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
along the continental shelf of Washington, from which fish tissue samples were 
collected for analysis by NCA. Numbers are the last 3 digits of the EMAP Station 
ID (Appendix Table 2). 


25 






@ 

(69^ 

100 Miles ~ 


O 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey Stations 



Figure 3.1.8. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
along the continental shelf of Oregon, from which fish tissue samples were 
collected for analysis by NCA. Numbers are the last 3 digits of the EMAP Station 
ID (Appendix Table 2). 


26 








Figure 3.1.9. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
along the continental shelf of northern California, from which fish tissue samples 
were collected for analysis by NCA. Numbers are the last 3 digits of the EMAP 
Station ID (Appendix Table 2). 


27 






Bottom depth for the 257 stations sampled in waters of the West Coast 
shelf ranged from 28 m to 138 m. Four stations, all from the SCB sampled as 
part of the Bight ’03 study, exceeded the target frame depth of 120 m but were 
included in the analyses in order to obtain adequate sample numbers from some 
multi-density categories. The mean depth of the waters of the West Coast shelf 
sampled was 72.6 m (Figure 3.1.10). 

A variety of bottom types was encountered among the various stations. 
Along the Pacific coastline of Washington, the seabed was mostly fine sand, with 
' a higher incidence of silt and clay in water depths greater than 60 m. Five 
stations in Washington could not be sampled due to the presence of hard bottom 
and thus were replaced with alternate sites from the sampling design. Three 
stations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca could not be sampled because they fell in 
an area of seabed composed of coarse gravel, cobbles and rock fragments. 
These stations were replaced with reserve sites along the Pacific coastline, 
outside the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and near the mouth of the Columbia River. 
Along the Oregon coastline, fine sand was also the most common bottom type 
encountered. The sediment collected during the California leg of the cruise was 
highly variable and included both fine sands and silty sediments. The highest 
percentages of fine sediments were found at California stations. Two stations 
along the California coastline had to be abandoned due to rocky conditions and 
were replaced with alternate stations. Further details on sediment composition 
are presented in Section 3.3.1 below. 


28 


Depth (m) Depth (m) 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

All CA OR WA 



120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 



Figure 3.1.10. Mean +1 SD station depths compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non¬ 
NMS sample locations. 


29 



























3.2 Water Column Characteristics 


3.2.1 Salinity 

Salinity in the surface waters of the West Coast shelf for the 140 stations 
for which data were obtained ranged from 21.2 to 34.0 psu. The 50 th percentile 
of area had a surface salinity of 33.3 psu, while the 90 th percentile had a salinity 
of 33.9 psu. An estimated 8% of area had a surface salinity of < 31 psu. The 
majority of stations with surface salinity < 31 psu were located off the mouth of 
the Columbia River or farther south along the Oregon coast, presumably within 
the plume from the Columbia River (Figure 3.2.1). Surface salinity was generally 
less than 33 psu to the north of Cape Blanco, Oregon, and greater than 33 psu to 
the south of Cape Blanco (Figure 3.2.1). Reflecting this pattern, mean surface 
salinities were slightly lower in Washington and Oregon than California (Figure 

3.2.2 A), and slightly lower in the OCNMS as compared to the CA NMSs (Figure 

3.2.2 B). 

Bottom salinity ranged only between 31.6 and 34.4 psu for the 164 
stations for which data were obtained. The 50 th percentile of area had a bottom 
salinity of 33.9 psu, while the 90 th percentile had a salinity of 34.0 psu. An 
estimated 3.3% of the area of the shelf surveyed had a bottom salinity of < 33 
psu, represented by seven stations all located within the northern region of the 
Washington shelf. There was virtually no difference in the mean bottom salinity 
among states or between NMS and non-NMS stations (Figure 3.2.3). 

3.2.2 Water Temperature 

Temperature in the surface water of the West Coast shelf for the 140 
stations for which data were obtained ranged from 8.5 °C to 19.9 °C. The 50 th 
percentile of area had a surface-water temperature of 11.9 °C, while the 90 th 
percentile had a surface water temperature of 13.5 °C. Mean surface-water 
temperatures were similar between Washington and Oregon, while the California 
average was several °C higher (Figure 3.2.4 A). Highest mean surface 
temperatures were observed in the CA non-NMS stations. The CA NMS stations 
were similar to the OCNMS (Figure 3.2.4 B), reflecting the fact that most 
measurements were obtained from the NMS off the central California coast, while 
temperature data were missing from the Channel Islands NMS. 

Temperature in the bottom water of the West Coast shelf for the 164 
stations for which data were obtained ranged from 5.8 °C to 14.7 °C. The 50 th 
percentile of area had a bottom-water temperature of 7.8 °C, while the 90 th 
percentile had a bottom water temperature of 9.7 °C. Bottom-water temperatures 
for stations on the California coast were generally warmer by several °C than 
those from Oregon and Washington (Figure 3.2.5 A). The bottom-water 
temperatures for the CA NMS stations were slightly higher than the OCNMS 
(Figure 3.2.5 B) and probably would be much higher if temperature data from the 


30 


Channel Islands NMS were available to include in the CA NMS average. 
California non-NMS locations had the highest mean bottom-water temperature, 
resulting from the facts that many of the measurements were obtained within the 
Southern California Bight and that temperature data for NMSs in California were 
from more northerly locations exclusive of the Channel Islands NMS. 



Figure 3.2.1. Distribution of surface salinity values for the West Coast Shelf 
sampling area, June 2003. 


31 


























Surface Salinity (psu) Surface Salinity (psu) 


40 


OR 


WA 


30 - 


20 - 


10 - 


A 



M&jlf 

m 

imsn*? 

HBB& 

•• I 


All 



Figure 3.2.2. Mean +1 SD surface salinity compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non- 
NMS sample locations. 


32 

































Bottom Salinity (psu) Bottom Salinity (psu) 



40 


B 


30 - 


20 - 


10 - 


0 



CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 


Figure 3.2.3. Mean +1 SD bottom salinity compared among (A) all, California, 
Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non¬ 
NMS sample locations. 


33 






















Surface Temperature (°C) Surface Temperature (°C) 



20 


15 


10 


5 


0 


Figure 3.2.4. Mean +1 SD surface temperature compared among (A) all, 

California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 



CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 


34 



























Bottom Temperature (°C) Bottom Temperature (°C) 




Figure 3.2.5. Mean +1 SD bottom temperature compared among (A) all, 

California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 


35 



























3.2.3 Water-Column Stratification 


As an indicator of water-column stratification, an index of the variation 
between surface and bottom water densities was calculated from temperature 
and salinity data. The index (Ao t ) is the difference between the computed bottom 
and surface o t values, where o t is the density of a parcel of water with a given 
salinity and temperature relative to atmospheric pressure. 

The Ao t index for the 140 stations from waters of the West Coast shelf for 
which data were available ranged from 0.9 to 10.6. Approximately 30.5% of the 
area of waters of the West Coast shelf had Ao t index values greater than 2, 
indicating strong vertical stratification of the water column. The mean 
stratification index was greatest for waters off Washington and least for California 
waters (Figure 3.2.6). The mean stratification index was lowest for the CA NMS 
locations and less than half the mean for the CA non-NMS stations. During the 
sampling of the central California coast where three of the CA NMS are located, 
extremely high winds were encountered, and it is likely that wind induced 
upwelling greatly reduced water-column stratification in this region. The Bakun 
upwelling index reflects the intensity of large-scale, wind-induced coastal 
upwelling based on estimates of offshore Ekman transport driven by geostrophic 
wind stress. Index values for 36° N latitude for the West Coast in June 2003 
(source: 

http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/products/PFEL/modeled/indices/upwelling/NA/upwell_ 
menu_NA.html) showed that the peak upwelling period for the month occurred in 
the period June 17-24, exactly at the time when the CA NMS stations were being 
sampled (Figure 3.2.7). 

3.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen 

The range of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the surface waters 
of the West Coast shelf (data available for 140 stations) was 4.1 mg/L to 13.3 
mg/L. U.S. EPA (2000a) proposed that a DO value below 2.3 mg/L is harmful to 
the survival and growth of marine animals based on data from the Virginian 
biogeographic province. A DO value of > 4.8 mg/L is considered the chronic 
protective value for growth, i.e. the ceiling above which DO conditions should 
support both survival and growth of most marine species. Values between 2.3 
and 4.8 mg/L are potentially harmful to larval recruitment, depending on duration. 
Only approximately 2.6 % of the area of waters of the West Coast shelf had 
surface DO concentrations < 4.8 mg/L. The 50 th percentile of area had a 
surface-water DO concentration of 9.8 mg/L. Surface DO concentrations were 
higher in Washington and Oregon waters than in California and higher in the OC 
NMS than in the CA NMSs (Figure 3.2.8). 

Bottom-water DO concentrations region-wide ranged from 2.1 to 8.3 mg/L 
across the 140 stations with acceptable DO data. Unfortunately, an instrument 


36 


Ao, Act 


5 


A 


4 - 


3 - 


2 - 





Figure 3.2.6. Mean +1 SD water-column stratification index (Ao t ) compared 

among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and 
(B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and 
Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 


37 































Day of Month, June 2003 


Figure 3.2.7. Bakun upwelling index for 36° N latitude for the West Coast in June 
2003. 


cable problem resulted in a failure to collect DO data from many stations along 
the north and central Oregon coast. An estimated 94.3% of the shelf area had a 
bottom-water DO concentration < 4.8 mg/L and 6.6% of the area (6 of the 140 
stations where DO data were available) had a bottom-water DO concentration < 
2.3 mg/L. There was no geographic concentration of stations with bottom-water 
DO in this < 2.3 mg/L range (Figure 3.2.9). Stations with bottom-water DO > 4.8 
mg/L were concentrated at the extreme southern and northern ends of the survey 
region. Mean bottom-water DO concentrations were lower at Oregon stations 
than for Washington and California locations (Figure 3.2.10 A). Mean bottom DO 
was lower at the CA NMS stations than at the CA non-NMS stations, presumably 
resulting from the strong upwelling occurring during the sampling period that 
moved deeper low-DO water into the area (Figure 3.2.10 B). 

Flypoxia on the continental shelf of the West Coast appears to be 
associated with upwelling conditions in the region, while severe hypoxic events in 
inshore shelf areas (< 70 m) may be associated with changes in cross-shelf 
current patterns (Grantham et al. 2004). It appears that the frequency of shelf 
hypoxia has increased in recent years, and that shelf anoxia has now been 
observed at inner-shelf stations within 2 km of the surf zone (Chan et al. 2008). 


38 



Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 




Figure 3.2.8. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 


39 
































125°0'0"W 


120°0'0"W 


Figure 3.2.9. Distribution of bottom dissolved oxygen concentration values for 
the West Coast Shelf sampling area, June 2003. 


40 


N.,0,0oSP NnO.OoOP N..0.0oS£ 





























Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 



8 


6 


4 


2 


0 


Figure 3.2.10. Mean +1 SD bottom dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 



41 






























3.2.5 Total Suspended Solids 

The surface values for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in waters of the 
West Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 10 mg/L for the 137 stations with data. 
Because the TSS samples from Oregon were not properly processed, these data 
were not included in the present analysis. The 50 th percentile of the survey area 
had a TSS concentration of 4.0 mg/L, and the 90 th percentile of area 
corresponded to a TSS concentration of 7.4 mg/L. Mean TSS in surface waters 
was slightly higher for stations in Washington than for those in California (Figure 
3.2.11 A). There was little difference in mean TSS between NMS and non-NMS 
locations (Figure 3.2.1 IB). 

3.2.6 Transmissivity 

Transmissivity in the surface waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 
13.7% to 98.9% across the 140 stations with acceptable data. The 50 th 
percentile of the survey area had transmissivity of 74.3%, and the 90 th percentile 
of area had a transmissivity of 86.8%. Mean transmissivity in surface waters was 
higher for stations in California than for those in Oregon and Washington and 
showed little difference between stations inside vs. outside NMSs (Figure 
3.2.12). 

Transmissivity in the bottom waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 
5.0% to 95.2% across the 175 stations with acceptable data. The 50 th percentile 
of the survey area had transmissivity of 85.6% and the 90 th percentile of area had 
a transmissivity of 91.6%. Mean transmissivity in bottom waters showed little 
difference among geographic regions or between NMS and non-NMS locations 
Figure 3.2.13). Across the West Coast shelf, bottom waters had relatively higher 
mean transmissivity than surface waters (Figures 3.2.12; 3.2.13). 

3.2.7 Nutrients 

The surface-water concentration of nitrate + nitrite in waters of the West 
Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 546.6 pg/L at the 188 stations with data. The 50 th 
percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a 
nitrate + nitrite concentration of 26.2 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of area 
characterized by a nitrate + nitrite concentration of 354 pg/L. The mean value of 
nitrate + nitrite concentration in surface waters was highest in California as 
compared to Washington and Oregon and three times higher in the CA NMS 
stations as compared to the CA non-NMS stations (Figure 3.2.14). The elevated 
nitrate + nitrite observed at the CA NMS stations is consistent with the presence 
of strong upwelling at these sites at the time of sampling. 


42 


Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 


8 


A 



8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Figure 3.2.11. Mean +1 SD surface Total Suspended Solids compared among 
(A) all, California, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington non- 
NMS sample locations. Oregon data was not acceptable. 



43 




























Surface Transmissivity (%) Surface Transmissivity (%) 



100 


B 


80 - 


60 - 


40 - 


20 - 


0 



CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 


Figure 3.2.12. Mean +1 SD surface transmissivity compared among (A) all, 

California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 


44 































Bottom Transmissivity (%) Bottom Transmissivity (%) 


120 


A 


100 - 

80 - 

60 - 

40 - 

20 - 

0 - 



All CA OR WA 



Figure 3.2.13. Mean +1 SD bottom transmissivity compared among (A) all, 

California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 


45 

























The surface-water concentration of ammonium in waters of the West 
Coast shelf, exclusive of the waters of the SCB for which ammonium was not 
analyzed, ranged from 0 to 50 (jg/L at the 146 stations for which data were 
available. The 50 th percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast 
shelf sampled had an ammonium concentration of 2.2 pg/L, with the 90 th 
percentile of total area characterized by an ammonium concentration of 21.4 
pg/L. The mean value of ammonium in surface waters was highest in California 
and Oregon and lowest in Washington, with the lowest mean concentration of 
ammonium being found from stations sampled in the OCNMS (Figure 3.2.15). 

The surface-water concentration of total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN: 
nitrogen as nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) in waters of the West Coast shelf, 
exclusive of the waters of the SCB for which ammonium was not analyzed, 
ranged from 0.1 to 596.7 pg/L for the 146 stations with data. The 50 th percentile 
of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a DIN 
concentration of 47.4 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of total area characterized by 
a DIN concentration of 367 pg/L. The mean value of DIN concentration in 
surface waters was highest in California as compared to Washington and Oregon 
(Figure 3.2.16 A). DIN concentration for the CA NMSs was slightly higher than 
for the CA non-NMS stations, but the difference was much smaller than was the 
case for nitrate + nitrite only (Figure 3.2.16 B). 

The surface-water concentration of orthophosphate in waters of the West 
Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 80.1 pg/L for the 188 stations with data. The 50 th 
percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had an 
orthophosphate concentration of 11.4 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of total 
estuarine area characterized by a concentration of 61 pg/L. The mean value of 
orthophosphate concentration in surface waters was higher in California than in 
Washington and Oregon, where values were similar (Figure 3.2.17 A). Mean 
orthophosphate concentration in surface waters of the CA NMSs was more than 
three times greater than the mean value for the OCNMS and the non-NMS areas 
of the shelf (Figure 3.2.17 B). The elevated orthophosphate values are again 
consistent with the occurrence of upwelling during sampling of the CA NMS 
stations. 

The ratio of total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (nitrogen as nitrate + nitrite + 
ammonium) concentration to total orthophosphate concentration was calculated 
as an indicator of which nutrient may be controlling primary production. A ratio 
above 16 is generally considered indicative of phosphorus limitation, and a ratio 
below 16 is considered indicative of nitrogen limitation (Geider and La Roche 
2002). The N/P ratio ranged from 7.9 to 24.0, across the 146 stations in waters 
of the West Coast shelf where sufficient measurements were collected to 
compute the ratio. Approximately 93% of area of the West Coast shelf had N/P 
values <16. The 50 th percentile of area of the waters of the West Coast shelf 
sampled had a ratio of 12.8, while the 90 th percentile of area had a ratio of 14.6. 
The mean N/P values were similar for the three states, while that for the OCNMS 


46 


was less than half that of the CA NMS and non-NMS areas (Figure 3.2.18). 
Examination of the Bakun upwelling index at 48° N shows that there was 
downwelling occurring in the region of the OCNMS just prior to the sampling at 
this location, and only weak upwelling occurring during the sampling period. 

Silicate concentrations of water samples were analyzed by the states of 
Washington and California (exclusive of the SCB), but not Oregon. Therefore 
there were only 97 sample sites with silicate data available. The surface-water 
concentration of silicate in waters of the West Coast shelf within Washington and 
California ranged from 0 to 2040.5 pg/L. The 50 th percentile of area of the waters 
of the West Coast shelf sampled had a silicate concentration of 307 pg/L, with 
the 90 th percentile of area characterized by a concentration of 973 pg/L. The 
mean silicate concentration for surface waters was similar between Washington 
and California locations, while the mean silicate concentration for the CA NMSs 
was approximately twice that of the OCNMS and the non-NMS locations (Figure 

3.2.19) . These results are again consistent with the spatial patterns of upwelling 
on the shelf during the sampling period. 

3.2.8 Chlorophyll a 

The surface-water concentration of chlorophyll a for the 187 stations 
sampled in waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 28 pg/L (Figure 

3.2.20) . The 50 th percentile of area of the waters of the West Coast shelf 
sampled had a chlorophyll a concentration of 3.9 pg/L, while the 90 th percentile 
had a chlorophyll a concentration of 14.5 pg/L. The mean chlorophyll a 
concentration for surface waters in California was less than half that of locations 
in Washington and Oregon locations (Figure 3.2.20 A). The lowest mean 
chlorophyll a concentration was for the CA non-NMS locations, while the mean 
for the CA NMS locations was approximately 60% of that found in the OCNMS 
(Figure 3.2.20 B). 


47 


Surface nitrate + nitrite (f.ig/L) Surface nitrate + nitrite (|.ig/L) 


400 



400 


300 


200 


100 


0 


Figure 3.2.14. Mean +1 SD surface nitrate + nitrite compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 



48 






























Surface Ammonia (jag/L) Surface Ammonia (jug/L) 



30 


20 


10 


0 

Figure 3.2.15. Mean +1 SD surface ammonium compared among (A) all, 

California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. SCB stations not included due to lack of 
ammonium data. 


B 



CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 


49 





























Surface Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (|.ig/L) Surface Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (ng/L) 


400 


A 


300 - 



400 


300 


200 


100 


0 

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 



Figure 3.2.16. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen compared 

among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and 
(B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and 
Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. California Bight stations 
not included due to lack of ammonium data. 


50 



























Surface Orthophosphate (pg/L) Surface Orthophosphate (pg/L) 



70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Figure 3.2.17. Mean +1 SD surface orthophosphate compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 


B 



CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 


51 






























d/N d/N 



B 


30 - 


20 - 



CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 


Figure 3.2.18. Mean +1 SD N/P ratio in surface waters compared among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. California Bight stations not included due to 
lack of ammonium data. 


52 































Surface Silicate (fig/L) Surface Silicate (j_ig/L) 


800 



1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Figure 3.2.19. Mean +1 SD surface silicate concentration compared among (A) 
all, California, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, 
California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington non-NMS 
sample locations. Silicate was not measured at stations in Oregon or in 
the SCB (see text). 



53 




























Surface Chlorophyll a (pg/L) Surface Chlorophyll a (pg/L) 


20 


A 


15 - 


10 - 


5 - 


0 



WA 


20 


15 


10 


5 


0 


Figure 3.2.20. Mean +1 SD surface chlorophyll a concentration compared 

among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and 
(B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and 
Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 



54 































3.3 Sediment Quality 


Table 3.3.1 provides a summary of the means and ranges of sediment 
physical characteristics and chemical contaminant concentrations for all West 
Coast stations combined as well as by individual states (CA, Oregon, 
Washington) and National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-sanctuary status. 
The latter comparison includes California sanctuaries (Channel Islands NMS, 
Monterrey Bay NMS, Gulf of the Farallones NMS, and Cordell Bank NMS) vs. 
non-sanctuary stations in California and stations in the Olympic Coast NMS 
(OCNMS) vs. non-sanctuary stations in Oregon and Washington. Appendix 4 
also provides a breakdown of this information by individual station. Sediment- 
quality data were available at 257 stations throughout the region for chemical 
contaminant variables, 255 stations for sediment grain size, and 256 stations for 
TOC. 

3.3.1 Sediment Composition: Grain Size and TOC 

The percentage of silt-clay in sediments ranged from 0.5% to 98.7% 
region-wide (Table 3.3.1, Fig. 3.3.1). Approximately 44% of the overall survey 
area had sediments composed of sands (< 20% silt-clay), 47% was composed of 
intermediate muddy sands (20-80% silt-clay), and 9% was composed of muds 
(> 80% silt-clay). All mud sediments (> 80% silt-clay) occurred in California. The 
majority of California sediments consisted of intermediate muddy sands, while 
Oregon and Washington were dominated by sands (Fig. 3.3.2). 

Percent total organic carbon (TOC) in sediments exhibited a wide range 
(0.0% to 7.6%) throughout the region (Table 3.3.1, Fig. 3.3.3). The majority of 
the survey area (97%) had relatively low TOC levels of < 2%, while a small 
portion (< 1%), consisting of two sites in California, had high TOC levels (> 5%; 
Fig. 3.3.4). About 2% of the survey area (represented by 10 sites) had 
intermediate levels of TOC (2-5%). In comparison, estuarine habitats along the 
U.S. West Coast have high levels of TOC in similarly limited areas (< 1%) and 
intermediate levels of TOC over slightly broader areas (11% of the estuarine 
area) (U.S. EPA 2004). The upper and lower thresholds of 2% and 5% used 
here for evaluating the biological significance of sediment TOC content are 
adopted from earlier EPA National Coastal Condition Reports (e.g., U.S. EPA 
2004). Hyland et al. (2005) also identified TOC concentrations > 3.6% (36 mg/g) 
as an upper range associated with a high risk of degraded benthic condition from 
multiple coastal areas around the world. The portion of the present survey area 
with TOC in excess of this slightly more conservative cut point also was relatively 
small (< 1%) and limited to California. The three sites in California with sediment 
TOC content in excess of either upper threshold (3.6% or 5%) were in the 
Channel Islands NMS (CINMS) (Fig. 3.3.4, Appendix 4). The cause of the 
elevated TOC at these sites is unknown at this time. 


55 


Table 3.3.1. Comparison of sediment physical characteristics and chemical contaminant concentrations for (A) West 
Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) vs. non-NMS. 


0 
ra| 
c 
0 
C X 


O 
I— 
c/) 


0 

o> 

c 

CD 

CH 


Q 
I— 
C/5 


0 

05| 

c 

0 

cr 


< 

o 


O 
I— 
CO 


0 

o> 

c 

0 

x 


Q 
i— 
05 


0 

. 0 
< Q 



CO 

LO 


■'tf 

CM 

I s - 















id 

d 


"<— T— 

CD 


CO 

00 









05 




CD 

T— 

LO 

i CM 




T— 


00 

LO 

CNI 


o 

LO 

CD 

T— 

1 

1 

d 

CD 1 

i 

d CM 

CM 

CD 

00 

T— 

CM 

T“ 



id 

CM 

CM 

I 

LO 

CM 

i 

id 

05 

i i 

00 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

o 

d 

cd 

o 

CM LO 

CM 

0 

0 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 





_ 



__^ 

















,—. 


I s - 








-—. 






^^ 

^ 

00 ^ 
r-_ CO 

CO 

«s. 



—V 


^^ 

^ 

^-N 



/^N. 

^-V 

--- 


CM 

CO 

■>- 

53- 

CO 

V —) 

I s - 

05 

CM 

CO 


I s - 



00 

CM 

00 

d 


T— 

co 



S- 

^^ 

o 

T— 

CM 

LO 


cd 

CO 

r— 

T— 

id 

I s - 


I s - 

— 


T— X— 

T— 


CM 


— 



1 —' 


■ 

' 

1 1 

1 ' 

'— 1 


05 

CO 

T— 

CM C\i 

d 

2- co 

d 

LO 

co 

CD 

CD 

LO 

CO 

-— 

I s - 

I s - 

CO 

CD 

d 


LO 

o 

CD i- 


o d 

CD 

d 

' r - 

T_ 

cd 

id 

cd 


05 

T_ 

id 

CD 





LO 
















05 

CD 


CD ^ 
05 d 

LO 















05 

cd 


CM CO 

d 


00 














T— 


. CO 

T— 

T— 

1 












T— 

1 

1 

T— 

LO 1 

1 

d d 

LO 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

1 

05 

CM 

1 

d <P 

I s - 

i i 

1^ 

1 

1 

i 

1 

■ 

i 

1 

1 

1 

> 

i 

o 

d 

d 

o 

T- CO 

00 

o o 

V- 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


°o 

CO $2 
CD ^ 
CM 


d 


CD 

h- 


05 

d 


05 

d 


oo 

d 


•o- 

i 

o 


o- 

LO 


CD 00 Tt 

0 CD N 


05 CM 
C\l CO 


I 

o 


o o 


I 

o 


CD 05 ^ CM 
O CM CO Tf 

t- cd 


CM 

CO 


CO 05 CM CO ^ 

^OOIMO 

r-r-iniOT- 


o o o 


o 

I 

o 


o 

I 

o 


-'t 

d 

00 


CO CO 
CM^d ID 


LO 

CD 


00 CM 


CD 


o o 


oooooooooooooooo 


: cm co 


T ~ 

CD 

O 

T_ 

T ~ 

T_ 

o 

O LO 

o o 

o 

o 

O 








co 





I s - 





00 


d 





00 

CO 


CM 

CD 

r- 


o 

00 


05 

LO 

05 

•d 

05 

CM 

d 

CM 

CD 

05 Tt 

o d 

CM 

d 

d 

1 

T— 

d 

i 

I s - 

1 

d 

CM 1 

T— CM 

d 


CD 

CM 

1 

i 

CM 

1 


1 

i CM 

1 1 

1 

i 

i 

r— 

o 

o 

CD 

o 

T_ 

o 

O I s - 

0 

0 

o 

o 

o 













ocT 



oT 

, — . 



Jm 





r4 

^ -s. 


1 C\ 

LO 


^^ 




^^ 


NJ 

CM 

CM 

CD 

CO 

05 

T_ 

T— 

ro ^ 

CO 

xv ^ 

I s - 

CM 

LO 

1 ' 

CM 

d 

s — 


d 

d 

O s -' 

CM CM 

d 

I s - 

I s - 

CM 

■—' 

'—^ 

CD 

CO 


-—■ 

—' I s - 

-—- -— 

^^ 

-—^ 

-—■ 


05 

LO 

d 


00 

t-; 

X 00 

05 CM 

r-; 

LO 

CO 


cd 

d 


T_ 

CD 

d 

o 

d d 

o 

CM 

CM 




LO 




co 





I s - 



CD 


00 


d 





00 

CO 


05 

CD 

I s -’ 


o 

00 


05 

LO 

05 

d 

05 

CM 

d 

CM 

CD 

05 

o d 


d 

d 

1 

T— 

d 

1 

I s - 

i 

d 

CM 1 

t- CM 

CO 

M" 

CD 

LO 

1 

i 

CM 

1 


i 

i CM 

i i 

i 


i 

d 

o 

o 

CD 

o 


o 

O I s - 

0 

0 

o 

O 

o 













CM 



CO 

-—X 



CM 





id 

^^ 

^^ 

r— _ 

CO 

^^ 

^^ 

^ ( —'i 

X-—V ^^ 

^—v 

^^ 

^ v 

CM 


LO 

1 

LO 

00 

T_ 

T_ 

°2 co 

I s - 05 

CM 

CM 

05 

1 

CM 

o 

--- 

■- 

d 

d 

o ^ 

T— T— 

T— 

2 

2 

I s - 

s —^ 

■—■ 

CM 

T — 

-— 

■—■ 

^ CD 

-— 1 -— 

'-- 




I s - 


d 

CM 

CO 

s - 

. T— 

CD Tf 

’sf 

CM 

LO 

co 

•d 

d 

CD 


00 

o 

o uo 

d d 

d 

CM 

CM 


^ s ^ 


05 


^ ^ I s - O ^.rfCO^t 
CO LO CD CO CD 


h- CO 
CO CM CM 


CD 


cd °9 d 


cd o lo ^r 


00 LO 
CM 


05 


JoJd^^ ^ PJo £ ^ ^ 

cm td 53-" "" 

2^"^co oo cm 

CM 00 
■'t ■M" 


CM 


LO O CD 
I s - CM 05 


LO 
O CO 


^ I s - 


CD^t^J-^t'O' 
■M" LO CD CO CD 


O O O O O 


- -2 E 

g, ® g « .2 

rn .2 ^ E E 


E 

D 

E 

o 


CD 


0 


O u_ w 0) -o 
O 0 ro E 0 o 

I- o' ^ < O UU 


0 


D 

2 ® o 


CD 

C 


o S I = ,E 

C/5 N 


c 

0 

CD 


Q. 

0 

C 

0 

o 

< 


0 

c 

0 

>> 0 
■£ c 
x: 0 
Q- o 

0 CD 


0 

C 

0 

o 

0 


0 

c 

0 

o 

0 


5< 

cl Q- 


0 

c 

0 


c 

0 


0 

c 

0 

0 


05.25 

0 a 
$ £ 


Q. 


0 t= 

U C 

< < 


^ 0 
So' 

N N 
C C 
0 0 
CD CD 


0 
c o 

0 N 
CD c 
>> 0 


0 

0 ® 


■C i ■= 


c 

0 


0 

0 C 
C 0 

0) J= 


o 

D 

ODE 


x: 5 


0 


LL CM 


B 0 

■c c 

Q. 0 
0 XI 

Z CL 


0 

o 

o 

.2 

o 


_0 

o 

o 

0 

o 

E 


0 

X 

< 

CL 


0 


>, 

CL 


& O 


o 


Jlh 


oo 

d d 

i i 

o o 


CM 

d 


t- 2 

d o 


o o 

i i 

o o 


o o 
o o 


I s - 

id o 
o I s - 

05 05 
CO CM 

i i 

o o 


^ ■'t 
O T- 
00 05 
CO CM 


00 I s - 


LO 05 
I s - LO 


I s - 

LO O 
O I s - 
05 05 
CO CM 


) O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 










^—- 





-—- 

oT 

oT 

2 

I s - 




CM 

I s - 

d 

00 

05 

rs 

\T 


co 


cb 

CM 

05 

CM 

. CO 

O) 


T— 


^— 

2 

2 

> 

T— 

00 

05 

--^ 


-—' 



" M - 


s — 

'—' 

00 

o 

CO 

CO 

CD 

! d 

CD 

CM 

I s - 

d 

CO 

00 

CD 

CD 

■ 

00 

d 

d 

LO 

CM 

I s - 


CO 


O 

Q 


0 

o 


LLl 

Q 

Q 




o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

i 

o 


o 

o 


LO 

CD 


^r 

oo 


d 


LO 

CD 


LO 

d 


r^ 

CM 


0 

CD 

o 

CL 


0 

o 





(y) 

i & 

Z 03 

§ g 

< ^ 


ch 3 

O c 

03 

0 


0 

CJ> 

c 

rn 0 

^ x 

Q 
I— 
CO 

c 
ro 
0 


O 

o 


CO o^l 

| 0 

4 x 

c 

o 

c -— 


< 

O 


Q 
1— 
CO 

c 

0 

0 


0 
. 0 

CD Q 


h- 

lo 

T — i 

. rx. 

o ci 


m- 

o 

o 


00 

LO 

T - 

IX- 

3 


co 

oo 

i 

LO 

00 


T- 00 

3^ o 

CO CM 
cd cd 


LO 

cd 

03 

CNJ oo lo 

i 00 t- 


h- LO 


LO 

03 


M" 

1 1 cd 3 

CD03 I , 
00 CNJ o o 


m- 

3 

CO 

LO 

3 


CM CO 00 

I I I 

o 


o o 


I 

o 


oo 


00 
03 

'— CO CM ^ 

T~ O 

03 ^ ^ O 
O 00 T- '-" T_ LO 

T- T- T- o O LO 


00 


LO LO 00 T- 
O ^T- ^ 

CM 0 N 
cd cd cd t- 



00 

M- 

CM 


|x~ 


LO 






LO 

T— 

T— 

cd 


• 





00 

CD 

|x- 00 , 

CM 



CO 

rx- 

CM 

CD 

M" 

T— 

1 

1 cd oo 

i 

■ 

cd CM 

r— 

LO 

id 


1 

LO 

™ ■ 3 

00 

CD 

1 1 

03 

i 

1 

1 

1 

o 

cd 

00 O CM 

cd 


0 

0 

CO 

O 

o 

o 

o 


^^ 

^_ 










CM 

CO 




,-s 





—- 

CM 

CM 



^^ 

^^ 

f". 

,— 

^—, 


-- 

O’ 

^ ° 

<xT 

T— 

M- 

03 

LO 

M; 

CD 

CM 

cd 

1 — 

O O 

3 

OO 


— 

ci 

T— 

•r- 


' 

LO 

N- 

' 



— 

— 

-- 


00 

3 

^ 3 

r — 

00 

3cm 

00 

M- 

00 


|X- 

cd 

T ~ 

M- O CD 

T_ 

03 

o cd 

LO 

cd 

cd 

T_ 

CM 







00 






fx- 



00 


cd 

o 





XT 

00 

t- CNJ 

CD 



M- 


00 


03 

CM 

03 

Csj 03 CM 

cd 

CM 

CD 03 


CD 

id 

00 

od 

1 

1 

T- 3 1 

h- 

1 

O CM 

LO 

cd 

CM 

od 

00 

*- m 

M - 

1 1 00 

1 

CM 

i i 


1 

1 

1 

1 

<d 

CM 

9 

0 

0 

o 

CM 

o o 

T— 

o 

o 

o 

o 











CD 

00 











cd 

cd 

|x- 

LO 

CM 


o 

T— ! 

CM 

CD 

T— 

M- 

CM 

CM 

M" 

CM 

T_ 

M" 


LO 

" r j‘ 

CM 

OO 

LO 

T— 

CM 

00 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

1 

o 

1 

O 

1 

o 












_ 









,—s 


LO 

T 

—-V 

^—V 



,— v 

V 


__ 

00 



cd 

00 

LO 

00 

__ v 

"Cf 

CM 

CO 

LO 

CD 

cd 

CM 

3 

LO 

LO 

CM 

T— 

03 

T— 

CM 

CD 

|X-' 

T— 

-- 

- - - 

■ ■ 

' 

' ' 


' ' 

1 1 

'— 

' 

' ' 

CO 

CM 

CM 


M" 

CO 

LO 

CM 

CD 

CM 

00 


cd 

T^- 

CM 

T— 

O 

od 

cd 

t— 

3 

cd 

M- 


CM 

00 










03 












03 

CO 

cd 

CM 

o 

00 

CM 

03 

LO 

t— 

CD 

OO 

03 

od 

rx- 

o 

00 

CM 

i 

T— 

cd 

i 

00 

id 

CM 

CM 

i 

M" 

i 

00 

i 

|x- 

T— 

03 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

O 

cd 

o 









_ 












tx~ 



00 

CM 



cnT 

' X 

3 

3 


cd 

3 

3 

cd 

CM 

LO 

03 

T— 

3 

T— 

03 

T— 

id 

3 

— 

03 

— 

— 

cd 

od 

’ 

-- 


1 

CD 



XI 

rx- 

r^ 



00 

00 

rx. 

03 



CM 

T - 

cd 


M" 

00 

cd 

fxj 

T~ 

LO 

LO 

T - 

00 

LO 

M" 

03 







M - 




|X- 


LO 


00 

CM 


03 

cd 

M" 



cd 



T— 

|x-^ 

T— 

CD 

t— 

cd 


N- 

M- 

|x- 

CD 

M" 

T_ 

00 

T “ 

T_ 

T_ 

co 

LO 

LO 

00 

LO 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 



CM 

03 LO ^ fx- LO 

T — 

— 

■<- cd c\i t- 

■"—^ 

00 

'x-^ ^ ^- V -^ ^^ 

OJ 

3 

°0 |x- ^ 03 CD 


00 


OO O 0 't 


CM 

CM 


o o ^ 

' LO 
O O 00 


CM CM 


00 


_CO T- 

03 O ^ 

CM cd cd CM 


^ CO CO ^_ 

LO ^ O ^ 


03 


00 


03 

S °9 oo 
■<— M’ 

CM 


00 T- 

o cd 


03 


O T- 
CD 00 

CD * LO 00 Tt '— 00 

lo co od ^iT oo ^ cd 


03 CD 


03 


OO M" CM LO 00 


CO 
LO CM 


O) C 


0 

c 

0 

> 


0 

c 

0 

o 

0 


0 

SI 

o 

"0 

o 

'(f) 

> 

JZ 

0. 


vO c/5 

CD 

c 

Oil 

O 


03 

03 o 

3 £ 

V) ® 
— (!) 


E 

o 

E 

■O 

0 


E 

o 

E 

o 


< o o o 


0 

Q--o 

S- 0 
o (D 


E § o 
0 -Z c 

3 n 


^ 0 
0)^3 i 

err 

" Q. Q. 
0 0 0 
o C 

c 0 

0 o 


c 

0 

o 


0 

c 

0 

o 

0 

l_ 

JZ 

£ 


0 
c 
0 

£ >> 
C Q. 

3 o' 

N N 
c c 
0 0 


0 

c 

0 

0 

JO 


0 

c 

0 

o 

0 


i. 

jz c 
3 jz 

o 

N 

c 

0 o 

-0 3 


c 

0 


0 

c 

0 

0 


Q. 

0 

_c 

re 

-4—» 
0 


X 

< 

£ 

03 

0 


X 

< 

X 

£ 

03 

■0 


0 
c 
0 

£ 


G)< <<CDC0OQLl-Li-CM 

i— 

o 


c 
0 
■C C 
Q. o 
0 sz 
Z CL 


0 

o 

o 

0 

gl 

£ s 

CL ° 


_0 
o 

o 0 
0 X 
o < 
E a. 
0 0 

- 

Jlh 


00 M- 
o cd 

I I 

o o 


33 

o o 

LO 

00 T- 

o cd 

I I 

o o 


33 

o o 


LO O 

o h- 

03 03 
00 CM 

o o 


< H 


■'t 



03 

00 




00 














CM 

CM 


LO 

CD 

XT 

3 

O CD 


3 

CsJ^ 


CD 

CD 

00 

O 

CD 

r— 


CM 


LO 




CM 

3 

00 

03 

M; 

T— 

CM 

3 

CM 

CO 

3 

|x- 

3 

xt 


LO 

00 

c 



00 

cd 

'— 

1 — 


o 

o 


T— 

CM 

00 

rx- 



O 

3 

T— 

CM 

t— 

3 

3 

'— 


03^ 


■—' 

0 


03 

CM^ 

— 

M" 



' 


CD 

' 


o 


CD 

'— 

'— 




'— 


1 

CO 

CM 

3 

CO 

0 

(X- 

3 

M" 

LO 

3 

03 


CM 

3 

00 

CO 


00 


[X- 


CO 

CD 


00 

00 

M; 

T - 

3 

rx. 


o 


o 



cd 

M- 


3 

o 

cd 

LO 

o 

cd 

o 

CM 

CO 

3 

o 

3 

cd 

3 

3 

"'t 

xt 

00 

CM 

LO 


03 


CD 




M" 

CD 

00 



LO 














M; 

03 

3 



0 

03 

c 

^r 

00 


CM 

CM 



cd 




O) 

T— 

rx- 

03 

LO 

LO 


TTf* 


CD 


3 

M" 

CD 

CD 

3 

03 


CM 

CM 

■»“ 

3 


00 

CD 

o 

LO 

CM 

cd 


cd 

3 

3 


xj 

o 

CM 

3 

xJ 

oo 

CD 

i 

i 


CM 

■ 

i 

1 

cd 

o 

1 

T“ 

T— 

CD 


T— 

T— 

T— 

CM 

CM 

CM 

T— 

00 


CD 

T— 

i 

3 

3 

CD 0 

CM 

CM 

i 

1 

CM 

03 


i 

i 

CM 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

i 

i 

1 

i 

i 

i 

1 

xt 

1 

i 


O 

T- 

CM 

o 

CD 

cd 

3 

o 

o 

3 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

3 

o 

o 


LO LO 

00 00 
cd cd 


I- 

Q 

Q 

0 

o 


LU 

Q 

Q 

3_ 

M" 


o 

I 

o 


o 

o 


o 

I 

o 


o 

o 


Total PCBs _ 0.1 (0.9) 0-6.7 6.6 (22.4) 0- 165.1 





100 - 


co 

(D 


c 

d) 

o 

V— 

0) 

CL 

CD 
> 
■4—» 

jo 

E 

=3 

o 


80 - 


60 - 


40 - 


20 


0 


Cumulative Percent 
95% Confidence Interval 


0 


20 


40 


60 


80 


100 


Fines 


Figure 3.3.1. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 
Shelf sampling area vs. sediment percent fines (silt/clay). 


58 














Percent Fines Percent Fines 


70 


A. 


60 - 


50 - 


Percent of Area 
with Silt/Clay: 


< 20 % 

20 - 80% 
> 80% 




Figure 3.3.2. Comparison of sediment percent silt/clay (mean + 1 SD) by (A) 

West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) 
vs. non-NMS stations. 


59 
































2.0 


5.0 


100 


05 

(D 

l— 

< 

■*—> 

C. 

0) 

o 

l_ 

(D 

CL 

(D 
> 
'-t—i> 

TO 

E 

=3 

o 


80 


60 


40 


20 



Total Organic Carbon (%) 


Figure 3.3.3. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 
Shelf sampling area vs. sediment percent Total Organic Carbon (TOC). 


60 















Percent TOC Percent TOC 



Percent of Area 
with TOC: 

1 1 < 2 % 


r i 2 - 5% 



Washington 



Figure 3.3.4. Comparison of sediment percent Total Organic Carbon (TOC, mean 
+ 1 SD) by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine 
Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS stations. 


61 




































3.3.2 Sediment Contaminants: Metals and Organics 

Effects Range-Low (ERL) and Effects Range-Median (ERM) sediment 
quality guideline (SQGs) values from Long et al. (1995) were used to help in 
interpreting the biological significance of observed chemical contaminant levels in 
sediments. ERL values are lower-threshold bioeffect limits, below which adverse 
effects of the contaminants on sediment-dwelling organisms are not expected to 
occur. In contrast, ERM values represent mid-range concentrations of chemicals 
above which adverse effects are more likely to occur. A list of 28 chemicals, or 
chemical groups, for which ERL and ERM guidelines have been developed is 
provided in Table 3.3.2 along with the corresponding SQG values (from Long et 
al. 1995). Nickel was excluded from the present assessment because the SQG 
values have a low reliability for West Coast conditions, where naturally high 
crustal concentrations of the metal exist (Long et al. 1995, Long et al. 2000). 
Lauenstein et al. (2000) also found historical background concentrations of nickel 
in sediment cores along the West Coast in a range of 35-70 pg/g, which bracket 
the nickel ERM value of 51.6 pg/g. Any site with one or more chemicals (other 
than nickel) that exceeded corresponding ERM values was rated as having poor 
sediment quality, any site with five or more chemicals between corresponding 
ERL and ERM values was rated as fair, and any site that had less than five ERLs 
exceeded and no ERMs exceeded was rated as good (sensu U.S. EPA 2004). 

Sediments throughout the shelf survey area were relatively 
uncontaminated except for a group of stations in the SCB. Overall, about 99% of 
the total survey area (represented by 230 stations) had a rating of good, < 1% 
(represented by seven stations) had fair conditions with > 5 chemicals in excess 
of ERL values, and < 1% (represented by 22 stations) had poor conditions with > 

1 chemical in excess of the higher-threshold ERM values (Fig. 3.3.5). The 
pesticides 4,4'-DDE and total DDT were the only two contaminants that 
exceeded corresponding ERM values (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4). The ERM for total 
DDT was exceeded at 17 stations (representing < 1% of the overall survey area) 
and the ERM for 4,4'-DDE was exceeded at 22 stations (representing < 1% of 
the overall survey area). All of these sites were in California near Los Angeles. 
Total DDT and 4,4'-DDE were found in excess of the lower-threshold ERL values 
at 41 and 31 stations respectively, all of which again were in California, mostly in 
the Los Angeles area (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4; Figs. 3.3.6, 3.3.7). 

Ten other contaminants, including seven metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ag, 
Zn), 2-methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, and total PCBs were 
found at moderate concentrations in excess of corresponding, lower-threshold 
ERL values (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4). The most prevalent in terms of area were 
chromium (31%), arsenic (8%), 2-methylnaphthalene (6%), cadmium (5%), and 
mercury (4%). The 2-methylnaphthalene and mercury exceedances were limited 
entirely to California. The mercury exceedances were all at non-sanctuary sites 
in California, particularly in the Los Angeles area (Fig. 3.3.8), while the 2- 
methylnaphthalene exceedances were conspicuously grouped around the 


62 


CINMS (Fig. 3.3.9). 

Chromium ERL exceedances were much more widespread, with 
sediments exceeding the ERL value at sites along all three states (Fig. 3.3.10). 
Oregon had the highest incidence: 30 of 50 stations, representing 60% of the 
total survey area (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4). The highest concentration (296.5 pg/g) 
and highest mean concentration (129.5 pg/g) also occurred off Oregon (Table 
3.3.1). Chromium is naturally present in soils in the Pacific Northwest Coast 
range. Chromium was originally mined from black sand deposits along the 
Oregon coast in Coos County, and a low-grade ore was mined in the 1940’s to 
1950’s in Oregon and northern California, and to a lesser extent in Washington, 
under a federal stockpiling program (Baber et al. 1959). A report by EPA Region 
X on the ecological condition of the estuaries of Oregon and Washington (Hayslip 
et al. 2006) actually excluded chromium, as well as nickel and copper, from its 
aggregate sediment contamination indicator. Chromium was excluded in that 
report because the natural concentration of this metal in the earth’s crust and 
marine shales (100 and 90 pg/g, respectively; Krauskopf and Bird 1995) is 
greater than the ERL (81 pg/g). 

With a few exceptions, sediments within West Coast National Marine 
Sanctuaries (NMSs) were relatively uncontaminated (Tables 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4; 
Fig. 3.3.5). The OCNMS had no chemicals in excess of ERM values and only 
two chemicals, chromium and silver, were found in excess of the lower-threshold 
ERL values (Table 3.3.2). There were only four of 30 stations in the OCNMS 
with such chromium exceedances, compared to 31 of 70 stations in nearby non¬ 
sanctuary waters off the coast of Washington and Oregon. Similarly, CINMS had 
no chemicals in excess of ERM values. Three metals (As, Cd, Cr), 2- 
methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, total DDT, and 4,4'-DDE were 
found at moderate concentrations, between corresponding ERL and ERM values, 
at multiple sites within the CINMS. Flowever, total DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and chromium 
ERL exceedances were notably less prevalent at CINMS than in non-sanctuary 
waters of California (Figs. 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.10). DDT and its metabolites are well 
known legacy pesticides in the SCB, and the distributions seen in this survey 
reflect patterns seen in previous years (Schiff 2000, Schiff et al. 2006). In 
contrast, 2-methylnaphthalene contamination, albeit at moderately low levels 
(between ERL and ERM values), was much more prevalent in sediments at the 
CINMS compared to non-sanctuary waters off the coast of California. For 
example, the ERL value was exceeded at 19 of the 27 CINMS stations, 
compared to only 3 of 103 stations in non-sanctuary waters (Table 3.3.4, Fig. 
3.3.9). Schiff et al. (2006) attribute such elevated levels of PAHs in the California 
region to proximity of oil production platforms and reduced degradation of the 
compounds under cold water conditions. However, this does not explain the 
higher incidence of 2-methylnaphthalene contamination specifically around 
CINMS relative to neighboring non-sanctuary waters in the region. 


63 


In comparison to the present sediment quality ratings for offshore waters 
(98% of the total survey area rated as good, < 1% rated as fair, and < 1% rated 
as poor), estuarine habitats along the West Coast show a relatively higher 
incidence of sediment contamination, particularly in the moderate concentration 
ranges. For example, U.S. EPA (2004), based on the same contaminants and 
methods, found 79% of estuarine sediments along the West Coast of the U.S. in 
good condition, 18% in fair condition, and 3% in poor condition. While only two 
contaminants (4,4'-DDE and total DDT) were found in excess of ERM guideline 
values in the present offshore study, several contaminants were found above 
ERM levels in adjacent estuaries, including chromium, mercury, copper, DDT, 
several PAHs, and PCBs. In the present offshore survey, all stations where ERM 
values were exceeded (22 stations) were in California near Los Angeles. In the 
estuarine assessment, there were 24 stations where ERMs were exceeded, 
including 20 in California (majority in the San Francisco estuary and Los Angeles 
Harbor area) and four in Washington (three in the Puget Sound system and one 
in the Columbia River). 

Table 3.3.2. ERM and ERL guidance values in sediments (Long et al. 1995). 


Metals (pg/g) 

ERL 

ERM 

Arsenic 

8.2 

70 

Cadmium 

1.2 

9.6 

Chromium 

81 

370 

Copper 

34 

270 

Lead 

46.7 

218 

Mercury 

0.15 

0.71 

Nickel 

20.9 

51.6 

Silver 

1 

3.7 

Zinc 

150 

410 

Organics (ng/g) 

ERL 

ERM 

Acenaphthene 

16 

500 

Acenaphthylene 

44 

640 

Anthracene 

85.3 

1100 

Fluorene 

19 

540 

2-Methylnaphthalene 

70 

670 

Naphthalene 

160 

2100 

Phenanthrene 

240 

1500 

Benzo(a)anthracene 

261 

1600 

Benzo(a)pyrene 

430 

1600 

Chrysene 

384 

2800 

Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 

63.4 

260 

Fluoranthene 

600 

5100 

Pyrene 

665 

2600 

Low molecular weight PAHs 

552 

3160 

High molecular weight PAHS 

1700 

9600 

Total PAHs 

4020 

44800 

4,4-DDE 

2.2 

27 

Total DDT 

1.58 

46.1 

Total PCBs 

22.7 

180 


64 








Table 3.3.3. Comparison of the % area of sediments with chemical contaminants in excess of corresponding ERL and 
ERM sediment quality guidelines. 


c ^ 
O QC 
C C/5 LU 

£ ^ 
9 Z _I 
< 01 
^ LU 


c/5 


o 

o 


c/5 


c 

o 

c 

< 

O 


C/5 


< 

O 


01 

o 


< 

o 


01 

LU 


on 

UJ 


a: 

UJ 


on 

UJ 


on 

UJ 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


on 

LU 


0 

CD 

C 

< 


ooooooo o o ooo 


CO T- s 
T- V xfr 


OOT-O o o ooo 


ooooooo o o ooo 


o o £2 o o co o o o ooo 


ooooooo o o 


T- O T— to T— T— r— T— 

V ^ V V V V V 


CO !£? 00 o o o o 


^ ^ co v ^ v v 


JO 

cn 

3 y 

% <15 

© CO 

05 


If 

CD -C 

o o 


00 


CO CO 7 CO v v 


ooooooo o o 


y o 


CO 

o 


CO 


CD 

c 

© 

CD 


CN CM O 


CO 


V 


ooooooo o o ooo 


CO CM CM O 


ooooooo o o ooo 


'T o r o o o o o ooo 


ooooooo o o ooo 


? CM § o o o o o o ooo 


ooooooo o o 


00 I s - 


V V 




V 


0-00., C^-CD_C CD 
o. Jr > ¥ CD 0)5 Q-$o 
o O — C Q) “=7 CD O 

O ^ (/) N q c ^ <= -J 


X 

© Q_ 
o *- 
o _c 

© O) 
O - 0) 

E $ 


Lf5 

CD 








cr 

LU 

~o 

c 

TO 

_l 

DC 

LU 

CD 

c 

~o 

c 

o 

Q_ 

C/5 

0 

i_ 

i_ 

O 

o 


CO 

CO 

0 

o 

X 

0 


CO 

-4—< 

c 

CD 

c 

E 

TO 

c 

o 

o 

TO 

o 

E 

0 

_c 

o 

JZ 


0 

c 

o 

-4—» 

TO 

-4—> 

0 


0 

JD 

E 

I CO 

0) J 

5 TO 

> 

° 0 
c c 
O — 
0 0 
•C "O 

TO '5 

g- CD 

o CD 

* & 
00 -£ 
CO 0 

0 E 

m ^ 

TO 0 

I- 0 


c 2 

O CT 

c - LU 


cr 

o 

i 

< 


CO 


o 

o 


co 


c 

o 

c 

< 

O 


CO 


< 

o 


CO 


cr 

O 


< 

o 


CD 

> 

CD 

C 

< 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


cr 

LU 


o o o o o o o 


O j ' O O ' O 


o o o o o o o 


O O ^ O O T- o 


o o o o o o o 


ID CD CO ^ "3- 


o o o o o o o 


CM 05 CO O O O O 


o o o o o o o 


OJOIOOOCNO 


o o o o o o o 


CO 


o o o o 


o o o o o o o 




o o o o o o o 


CD CD 'si- 


CCD rsi CD 


UO UJ CM 


D> 

D) 

3 2 

CO c 
CD 

CD CO 

o > 


CO 


CD 


CM 

CM 


CM 

CM 


CO 


O O O 


O O O 


o o o 


o o o 


CM 
t— CM 


CO 00 
CO CM 


CO 


o o o 


CO CO o 


o o o 


o o o 


o o o 


o o o 


r-- cm 

T- CM 


M- CO 


00 


CM 
-r- CM 


M- CO 


CO 


II 


CD _ 

c X co 

CD *— <t I— QD 

-2 Q- Q llJ o 

£ £ R - Q 9 Q- 

CD 


_ CO 

cE^Di_ .y o p 1 o 

T3 2 Cl ^ ^ O ^ 3^ Q. $ - CD 

CD -C O 0) = C §,-^2 S-g O CU-gM-'g 

O O O 2 W N q ?cn c ° E $ K M-' ° 


CO 

CO 






Percent of Survey Area with: 


□ No ERM concentrations exceeded 

□ > 5 ERL concentrations exceeded 
■ > 1 ERM concentration exceeded 



California 


Oregon 


Washington 



Figure 3.3.5. Comparison of the spatial extent of sediment contamination by (A) 

West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. 
non-NMS stations. 


67 













Figure 3.3.9. Distribution of 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations in sediments along 
the SCB relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 


70 






Chromium (jjg/g) 

O <81 
O 81 - 370 
• >370 


Figure 3.3.10. Distribution of chromium concentrations in sediments along the 
western U.S. continental shelf relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 


71 










3.4 Fish Tissue Contaminants 


Concentrations of a suite of metals, PCBs, and pesticides (Table 2.3.1) were 
measured in whole fish collected from both the EMAP/NCA-West and FRAM 
groundfish surveys. All fish selected for analysis were flatfish (Pleuronectiformes) 
because of their commercial value and because of their potential contact with 
sediment-associated contaminants due to their affinity to bottom habitats. Because 
fish were collected from only about a third of all sites in the probabilistic EMAP/NCA- 
West survey, and because FRAM survey sites were not probability-based, CDFs 
and spatial estimates of condition could not be computed for fish-tissue 
contaminants. Patterns of contaminant concentrations throughout the region and 
the incidence of contaminant levels in excess of human-health guidelines are 
presented however. 

Concentrations of selected contaminants in whole fish were compared with 
risk-based EPA advisory guidelines for recreational fishers, using non-cancer 
(systemic) health endpoints associated with the consumption of four 8-oz meals per 
month (Table 3.4.1), which is the comparison basis used in National Coastal 
Condition Reports (U.S. EPA 2000b, 2001,2004, 2006). It is important to keep in 
mind that the guidelines used are for fish fillets, while the concentrations measured 
in the EMAP/NCA-West and FRAM surveys are for whole fish. Data presented here 
are for the parameters of interest in NCCR, including several metals, total PAH, total 
DDT and several other pesticides, including chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin, 
heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mirex, and toxaphene (Table 3.4.1). 

3.4.1 EMAP 

Collection of targeted flatfish, based on hook-and-line methods, was 
successful at only 50 of the 147 EMAP/NCA-West stations sampled. Fish were 
collected from 21 stations in Washington, 20 in Oregon and nine in California. No 
benthic fish were collected from the SCB as part of the EMAP/NCA-West survey. 
Eight of the nine California samples, 13 of the 21 Washington samples, and none of 
the Oregon samples were collected in National Marine Sanctuaries. Species 
selected for analysis included Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordid us), speckled 
sanddab ( Citharichthys stigmaeus), butter sole (Isopsetta isolepis), and Dover sole 
(■Microstomus pacificus). No fish that were collected exhibited evidence of obvious 
pathological disorders based on visual inspections in the field. Contaminants were 
measured in 55 composites, including some laboratory duplicates for QA, of flatfish 
tissue from the 50 stations. Results are summarized in Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. 

Cadmium - The lower cadmium non-cancer health-risk guideline value was 
exceeded in at least one composite at nine stations, including six of the 20 stations 
where fish were collected in Oregon (OR03-0006, 0009, 0010, 0017, 0039 and 
0040; Fig. 3.1.3) and three of the nine stations in California (CA03-0052, 0060 and 
0064; Fig. 3.1.4). While the stations from Oregon were not in a NMS, the three 
stations in California were within the Monterey Bay and Gulf of Farallones NMSs. 


72 



Tissue cadmium levels were not strongly correlated with sediment cadmium levels at 
corresponding stations (Fig. 3.4.1, r 2 = 0.049). 


Tissue vs Sediment Cadmium 



0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 

Sediment concentration - ug/g 


1.4 


1.6 


Figure 3.4.1. Tissue vs. sediment concentration of cadmium at corresponding 

stations from the EMAP/NCA-West 2003 shelf survey including samples from 
Washington, Oregon and California. 


Other parameters - The lower value in the range of non-cancer health-risk 
guideline values for total PCB was exceeded at one of 21 stations in Washington 
(WA03-0086), just north of the mouth of the Columbia River (Fig. 3.1.2). This 
observation may have resulted from the bioaccumulation of PCB in fish from within 
the Columbia River, and subsequent migration out of the estuary. The health-risk 
guideline values for all metals other than cadmium and all pesticides measured were 
not exceeded in fish collected in the EMAP/NCA-West survey. Data for all stations 
and parameters are summarized in Table 3.4.2 by state and in Table 3.4.3 by NMS 
vs. non-NMS status. 


73 









Table 3.4.1. Risk-based EPA advisory guidelines for recreational fishers 3 


Metals pg/g 

Concentration Range 0 

Health Endpoint 

Arsenic (inorganic) 0 

3.5-7.0 

Non-cancer 

Cadmium 

0.35-0.70 

Non-cancer 

Mercury (methyl) d 

0.12-0.23 

Non-cancer 

Selenium 

5.9-12.0 

Non-cancer 

Organics ng/g 

Chlordane 

590-1200 

Non-cancer 

DDT (total) 

59-120 

Non-cancer 

Dieldrin 

59-120 

Non-cancer 

Endosulfan 

7000-14000 

Non-cancer 

Endrin 

350-700 

Non-cancer 

Heptachlor Epoxide 

15-31 

Non-cancer 

Hexachlorobenzene 

940-1900 

Non-cancer 

Lindane 

350-700 

Non-cancer 

Mi rex 

230-470 

Non-cancer 

Toxaphene 

290-590 

Non-cancer 

PCB (total) 

a 1-.. 1 1 l-n A AAAAI 

23-47 

Non-cancer 


3 From U.S. EPA 2000b 


L 

Range of concentrations associated with non-cancer health endpoint risk for 
consumption of four 8-oz meals per month 
c Inorganic arsenic estimated as 2% of total arsenic 

d U.S. EPA 2000b recommends analyzing for total mercury with the use of a 
conservative assumption that all mercury is present as methylmercury, and thus 
comparison is made to the methylmercury risk based guideline. 


74 







Table 3.4.2. Comparison by state of the concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet 
weight) measured in fish tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West. An asterisk indicates that 
the lower level of the health risk guideline range (Table 3.4.1) was exceeded for this contaminant in at least one fish 
composite sample. 


CD 

OD| 

C 

CD 

od 


c 

CD 

CD 


<n 


CD 

m 

c 

CD 

od 


Od 

o 


c 

CD 

CD 


cn 


CD 

cm 

c 

CD 

Od 


< 

o 


c 

CD 

CD 


cn 


CD 

OD 

C 

CD 

Od 


c 

CD 

CD 


cn 


* 










OD 




CM 

T— 

CO 

00 

o 

LO 

T— 

CO 

o 

id 

CO 

CO 

O 

d 

d 

i 

d 

d 

LO 

d 

d 

d 

d 


CO 

cd 

d 

CO 

o 

o 

CM 

CO 

o 

o 


o 

O’ 

o 

o 

o 

1 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

o 


d 

o 

d 

d 















-- 


^—v 

.—, 

,—v 

^^ 

V. 

CO 



^^ 

^— s 

o 


CM 


■*— 

o 

o 

o 

^— 

OD 

OD 

o 

CO 

d 

d 

d 

T— 

d 

d 

d 

d 


d 

d 

o 



'—^ 

n —■ 

v —^ 

1 —' 

> —* 


v —■" 

00 

v " 

v —•" 

^^ 

—- 

o 

T— 

LO 

O) 

T~ 

T- 

LO 

o 

c\i 

CM 

CM 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

T ” 

d 

d 

d 

d 


T_ 

T— 

d 

CM 


* 







CD 







CM 

CO 

CM 

T— 

CO 

■*— 

d 

OD 

OD 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 


d 

d 

d 

d 

T— 

CM 

CM 

d 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

O' 

O 

O 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 














^—V 

^—v 

^—, 

--- 

^ s 

^^ 


—v 

ocT 

^ 

^—v 

^—v 


o 

CM 


CO 

o 

o 


o 


OD 

OD 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

— 

d 

d 

d 

d 


' s — ■" 

■—■ 

--" 

">—•" 

'•— 

n —' 

"■—^ 

T — 

"—' 

—' 

^^ 

N —** 

o 

CM 

T— 

T- 

o 

o 

M" 

o 

CM 

LO 

LO 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 


d 

d 

d 

d 


* 







O 

CO 

00 



o 

ID 

o 

OD 

o 

o 

LO 

o 


CO 

CO 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

o 

d 

d 

r — 



d 

o 

o 

T— 

o 


o 

o 

M" 

o 

T- 

M; 

O; 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

1^ 

cd 

cd 

d 

o 














o 

T— 

o 

cT 

o 

cT 

o 

o' 

cT 



o 

o' 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

t— 



d 

d 

''— 

■—■ 

>s — 

v — <■" 



■—•" 

v —^ 

■—' 

'—^ 

^— 


'-' 

o 

CO 

o 

LO 

o 

o 


o 

OD 

LO 

LO 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

00 

CO 

00 

d 

d 


* 







CO 

CO 

00 


* 

CM 

•»- 

LO 


o 

LO 


CO 


CO 

00 

00 

o 

d 

d 

d 

oo 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

T_ 

T y 


d 

CO 

1 

1 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

T- 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

1^ 

d 

d 

d 

o 














^ s 

v 

^^ 

x ^ 


^—v. 


^ 

T— 



y—«V 

X-—s 

o 

T— 

CM 

CM 

T 

o 

T— 

o 

c\i 

LO 

LO 

o 

OD 

d 

d 



o 

d 

d 

d 


cd 

cd 

d 

M- 




^—** 


> —*' 

^—' 

v —■" 

00 

^—' 

'—^ 


■—^ 

o 

CM 

CM 

o 

o 

o 


o 


CM 

CM 

o 

OD 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 


c\i 

CM 

d 

O 


LO 


0 

CD 

Q 


o 

"c 

CD 

OD 


OD 

= 2 . 

_0 

CD 
-♦—* 

CD 


o 


c 

* 

E 

E 

3 




E 



OD 

\— 

Q 

LU 

o 

D 





o 



OD 

Q 

Q 

d 
0 
0 
i_ 

E 

■0 

0 

E 

o 

i— 

sz 

0 

Q. 

Cl 

O 

■o 

0 

0 

o 

o 

0 

"c 

0 

0 

0 

> 

o 

c 

C 

0 

o 

l J 

0 

o 

O 

i 

M" 

< 

o 

o 

O 

_i 


in 

in 

N 

c 

0 

1- 



CD 


C/D 

CD 

"O 

o 

0 

0 

Q_ 

0 

xz 

O 







Table 3.4.3. Comparison by NMS vs. non-sanctuary concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds 
(ng/g wet weight) measured in fish-tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West survey. An 
asterisk indicates that the low level of the health risk guideline range (Table 3.4.1) was exceeded for this contaminant in at 
least one fish composite sample. 




x _ 

* 

LO 

00 

O; 

in 

V- 

CD 


CD 

CO 

CO 

o 

* 

CM 

CO 


d 

d 

d 

co 

d 

d 

d 

d 

CD 

CO 

CO 

d 

CD 

CO 


CD 

i 

t 

i 

■ 

1 

i 

1 

i 

i 

1 

1 

i 


z 

O) 

r~ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

O' 

o 

o 

o 

o 

c 

CD 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

N-" 

d 

d 

d 

d 

o 

CT 














c 















< 















> 


_ 

„_ v 

„_ s 

„_„ 

„_„ 

„_„ 

^_„ 

„—„ 

fv 

,—_ 

,—„ 

,—„ 

—_ 

> 


o 

T— 

CM 

o 

T— 

o 

T“ 

o 


o 

o 

o 

in 

cr 


o 

d_ 

d 

T— 

d^ 

o 

d 

d 


T— 

T” 

o 

CD 

O 


o 

C\J 

CM 

CD 

o 

o 

O 

o 

T- 

CO 

00 

o 

CO 


©H 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

CM 

d 

d 

d 



























ct> 







^— 

CM 

00 

o 

CM 

T— 

CD 

o 

in 

O' 

O' 

o 

in 



d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 


CM 

Csi 

d 

CM 


CD 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

1 

i 

i 

1 


CD 

o 

o 

CO 

00 

o 

o 

O' 

o 

O) 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CD 

d 

o 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 


cr 









T_ 





z 















o 















o 



„—_ 

„__ 

,__ 

,_„ 

„_„ 

,__ 

,__ 

« ♦ 

„__ 


„__ 

^. 



o 

o 

CM 

CO 

T— 

o 

o 

o 

N 

00 

00 

o 

C3 



d 

d 

d 

r—’ 

d 

d 

d 

d 


d 

d 

d 

d 


^-V. 


n — 

^— 


'—* 

s —' 

■— 

v —* 


■—' 

■—^ 

■—^ 

''— 



o 

T— 

ID 

T— 

o 

T— 

in 

o 

T_ 

T— 

T— 

o 

CD 


©£ 

d 

d 

d 

CM 

d 

d 

d 

d 

CO 



d 

d 

















< 

o 


CD 

C 

o 


C/5 CD — 
0 ) 0 - 


Z TO 

c cr 


o 

c 


E 

CD 

CD 


CD 

c 

o 


c 

CD 

<D 


0) 

Q. 


(f) 


CD 

CD 

C 

CD 

cr 


< 

o 


ro P 

•Ife 


3 

TO 

Q 


ocmoo-oooo-t- 

ddddddddf- 


OCNJO^tOO^tO'r- 

ddddddddr^ 


o 

d 


* 

ID 


o 


o 

d 


05 

o 


o 

d 


o 

d 


ID 


o 

i 


o 

d 


o 

d 


O' 

d 


o 

d 


o 

o 


o 

d 


o 

d 

i 

o 

d 


i 

in 

h- 


Ot-OCsJOOOO 

d^d^o^d^d d d d 

ocoocdooo;o 

dddddddd 


c\i 


CD 


O 

'c 

CD 

CD 


O 

C * 


S O 

g c 

CD 

W c n 


3 

E 

■o 

CD 


E 

3 

E 

o 

i— 

-C 


3 

o 


00 00 
00 00 


o 

d 


o 

d 


oo co 
oo co 


o 

d 


o 

d 


CD CD 

c\i c\i 


o; o; 
co co 


o 

d 

i 

o 

d 


o 

d 


o 

d 


CD O) O O 

c\i c\i d o 


co co o o 
k n o o 


CD 

CD 

■g 

'o 


O) 


CD 

9- ■D 

o (D 


3 < o o o .j 

CD 


d 

3 

o 

CD 


E 

3 

’c 

0) 

CD 


O) Q uj 


CD 
CD QD 


CD 

> 


o 

c 


CD 

O 


05 CO N 


c 

CD 

CD 


3 

o 


O 

Q 


CD 

0. 


o 

CL 


CD 


o^ 

o- 


O 


CD 

h- 






3.4.2 FRAM Groundfish Survey 

Fish were analyzed for contaminants in 99 tissue composites from 60 
stations sampled in 2003 by the Fisheries Resource Analysis and Monitoring 
(FRAM) Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) of NOAA 
as part of their western groundfish survey program (Figs. 3.1.6-3.1.9; Appendix 
Table 2). Fish collected from FRAM stations that were within the EMAP/NCA- 
West sampling frame were transferred to EPA for subsequent analysis. Species 
selected for analysis included Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), petrale 
sole (Eopsetta jordani), rex sole ( Glyptoephalus zachirus), Dover sole 
(Microstomus pacificus) and English sole (Parophrys vetulus). Data for all 
stations and parameters are summarized in Table 3.4.4. 

Cadmium - The lower end of the range of cadmium values associated 
with non-cancer risks was exceeded in at least one composite at nine stations 
coastwide, including five sites in California, mostly near San Francisco Bay 
(CEW03419-016, 054, and 058 in the Monterey Bay NMS; 026 in Cordell Bank 
NMS; and 022 not in a NMS; Fig. 3.1.9); two in Oregon (CEW03419-082 and 
087 not in a NMS; Fig. 3.1.8); and two in Washington (CEW03419-112 and 116 
both in the Olympic Coast NMS; Fig. 3.1.7). Fish from Station CEW03419-058, 
south of San Francisco Bay (Fig.3.1.9), had cadmium in excess of the upper end 
of the non-cancer health-risk range. 

Mercury - Fish consumption has been reported to be a major source of 
mercury in humans. The human-health risk guideline level for mercury was not 
exceeded in this study, though concentrations approached that level in some 
composites. The mercury concentrations reported in this study are total mercury, 
whereas the form of mercury that may cause human-health effects is methyl 
mercury. However, the U.S. EPA recommends an approach where total mercury 
concentration is measured, and with the use of a conservative assumption that 
all mercury is present as methylmercury, a comparison is made to the 
methylmercury risk based guideline (U.S. EPA 2000b). This conservative 
approach is viewed as being both protective of human health and most cost 
effective. The presence of selenium in these fish tissue samples may reduce the 
health impacts of methyl mercury, as selenium sequesters mercury, making it 
metabolically unavailable (for a review, see Raymond and Ralston 2004). 

Other parameters - The health-risk guideline values for metals (other 
than cadmium), PCBs, and pesticides were not exceeded in fish collected from 
the FRAM survey (Table 3.4.4). The maximum concentration of total DDT 
measured was 30.4 ng/g, which is below the risk guideline. One composite 
sample from Washington (CEW03419-122) had an aldrin concentration of 0.64 
ng/g, but the other composite from the same station had no aldrin, and aldrin was 
undetected in all other samples. Levels of all other pesticides were undetectable. 


77 





Table 3.4.4. Concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds 
(ng/g wet weight) measured in tissue composites of fish collected from 60 
stations in the 2003 FRAM survey. Frequency of detection is the number of 
stations (among 60) where the parameter was detected at a level above the 
minimum detection limit (MDL) in flatfish. An asterisk indicates that the low level 
of the health risk guidelines range was exceeded in at least one fish composite 
sample. 


Contaminant 

Mean 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Frequency 

of 

Detection 

Health Risk 
Guideline 
Range 

Metals (pig/g): 
Inorganic 
Arsenic 

0.1 

0.2 

0.0 

60/60 

3.5-7.0 

Cadmium* 

0.2 

1.5* 

0.0 

45/60 

0.35-0.70 

Chromium 

0.2 

1.0 

0.0 

34/60 

- 

Copper 

0.5 

2.6 

0.0 

47/60 

- 

Lead 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

4/60 

- 

Mercury 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

52/60 

0.12-0.23 

Selenium 

0.4 

1.8 

0.0 

44/60 

5.9-12.0 

Silver 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1/60 

- 

Zinc 

10.0 

13.8 

6.5 

60/60 

- 

Organics (ng/g): 

Total PCB 

0.3 

3.8 

0.0 

11/60 

23-47 

Total DDT 

5.0 

30.4 

0.0 

41/60 

59-120 

4,4"-DDE 

5.0 

30.4 

0.0 

41/60 

- 

Other 

Pesticides* 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

1/60 

_ 


The State of Washington measured metals and organics in fillets offish 
separately from the remains (whole fish minus fillets). This procedure provides 
some data for estimating filet levels of contaminants from measurements of 
contaminant levels in whole fish from California and Oregon. Cadmium levels 
were undetectable in all fish fillets, suggesting that the levels reported for whole 
fish might not be accurate for fillets, and levels of cadmium in fish fillets from fish 
sampled in this study might be below EPA health-risk guidance values. For other 
metals, the ratio of mean values in fillets to mean values in remains was variable, 
ranging from 0.30 to 1.35 (Table 3.4.5). Total PCBs at one station were 
undetectable in remains, but measured 2.8 ng/g in fillets. At other stations, the 
ratio of levels in fillets vs. remains averaged 0.24. For total DDT, the ratio of 
levels in fillets vs. remains averaged 0.98. 


78 





Table 3.4.5. Ratios of concentrations of measured chemical parameters in fillets 
vs. remains of fish in flatfish collected in Washington for the 2003 FRAM 
groundfish survey. 


Contaminant 

Mean in Fillets 

Mean in Remains 

Mean of Ratios 

Metals (pg/g) 

Inorganic Arsenic 

0.06 

0.07 

0.98 

Cadmium 

0.00 

0.08 

_ 

Chromium 

0.33 

0.48 

0.68 

Copper 

0.27 

0.82 

0.30 

Lead 

0.00 

0.00 

- 

Mercury 

0.06 

0.04 

1.35 

Nickel 

0.00 

0.00 

- 

Selenium 

0.29 

0.29 

0.94 

Silver 

0.00 

0.00 

- 

Organics (ng/g) 

Total PCB 

0.30 

1.21 

0.24 

Total DDT 

0.06 

0.07 

0.98 

Other Pesticides 

0.0 

0.0 

- 


3.5 Status of Benthic Communities 

Macrobenthic infauna (> 1 mm) were sampled at a total of 256 stations 
throughout the study region. A single grab (0.1 m 2 ) was collected at all stations 
except three, at which duplicates were taken, thus resulting in a total of 259 
benthic grabs. The duplicate samples were averaged for the calculation of CDFs 
and other analysis purposes. The resulting data are used here to assess the 
status of benthic community characteristics (taxonomic composition, diversity, 
abundance and dominant species), biogeographic patterns, the incidence of 
nonindigenous species, and potential linkages to ecosystem stressors throughout 
the western U.S. continental shelf from the Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA to the 
Mexican border. Assessments are presented on a region-wide basis, by state 
(WA, Oregon, California), and by NMS vs. non-sanctuary status. The latter 
comparison includes California sanctuaries (Channel Islands NMS, Monterrey 
Bay NMS, Gulf of the Farallones NMS, and Cordell Bank NMS) vs. non¬ 
sanctuary stations in California and stations in the Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS) 
vs. non-sanctuary stations in Oregon and Washington. Characteristics of the 
shelf benthos are also compared to those of neighbouring estuaries along the 
West Coast, using 1999-2000 data on estuaries from the NCA-West database 
(Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 2004, Hayslip et al. 2006). 


79 











3.5.1 Taxonomic Composition 

A total of 1,482 taxa were identified region-wide, of which 1,108 were 
identified to the species level. Polychaetes were the dominant taxa, both by 
percent abundance (59% region-wide, Fig. 3.5.1) and percent taxa (44% region¬ 
wide, Fig. 3.5.2, Table 3.5.1). Crustaceans and molluscs were the second and 
third most dominant taxa respectively, both by percent abundance (17% 
crustaceans, 12% molluscs) and percent taxa (25% crustaceans, 17% molluscs). 
Collectively, these three groups represented 88% of the total faunal abundance 
and 86% of the taxa throughout the region. Crustaceans were represented 
mostly by amphipods (202 identifiable taxa, 14% of the total number of taxa) 
followed by decapods (49 taxa, 3.3% of total taxa) and cumaceans (39 taxa, 

2.6% of total taxa) (Table 3.5.1). Molluscs were composed mostly of bivalves 
(116 taxa, 7.8% of total taxa) and gastropods (112 taxa, 7.5% of total taxa). High 
proportions of polychaete and amphipod species are also characteristic of 
estuaries along the West Coast, though there are notable differences in the 
relative proportions of other taxonomic groups (Table 3.5.2). For example, 
species of larval insects represented 2.9% of total taxa in the NCA-West 
estuarine data set, but were absent in the present shelf samples. In contrast, 
ophiuroids and holothurians are more specious on the shelf than in estuaries. 
Also, while oligochaetes as a group represent only 0.2% of the total faunal 
abundance on the shelf, Nelson et al. (2005) reported them as being dominant 
(among the 10 most abundant) members of the estuarine benthos along the 
West Coast. 

Polychaetes, crustaceans, and molluscs dominated the benthic fauna 
consistently across the three states and NMS vs. non-sanctuary categories (Fig. 
3.5.1, 3.5.2). Similar to the region-wide pattern, polychaetes were the most 
dominant, by both percent abundance and species richness, consistently across 
all strata. However, while crustaceans were the second-most abundant group in 
California (similar to the region-wide pattern), molluscs were proportionally more 
abundant than crustaceans in Oregon and Washington. There were no major 
differences in the percent composition of benthic communities between NMSs 
and corresponding non-sanctuary sites. However, molluscs were proportionally 
more abundant and specious than crustaceans at non-sanctuary sites in Oregon 
and Washington than at the OCNMS. 

3.5.2 Diversity 

Species richness, expressed as the number of taxa present in a 0.1 -m 2 
grab, was relatively high in these offshore shelf assemblages. A total of 1,482 
taxa were identified region-wide from the 259 benthic grabs. Species richness 
ranged from 19 to 190 taxa/grab and averaged 79 taxa/grab (Table 3.5.3, Fig. 
3.5.3). In comparison, the NCA-West estuarine data (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; 
U.S. EPA 2004, Hayslip et al. 2006) show an average of 26 taxa/grab in 
estuaries along the West Coast (Table 3.5.3). Only five of the 256 shelf stations, 


80 


representing about 2% of the shelf area, had < 26 taxa/grab (Fig. 3.5.4). This 
greater species richness was reflected over large areas of the shelf. For 
example, approximately 50% of the area of the shelf had species richness > 67 
taxa/grab and 10% of the shelf had >110 taxa/grab (Fig. 3.5.4, Table 3.5.3). In 
comparison, the corresponding CDF 50 th percentile value for estuaries was 49 
taxa/grab and the 10 th percentile value was 90 taxa/grab (Table 3.5.3). Species 
richness along the shelf was highest off California (mean of 94 taxa/grab) and 
nearly equally lower in Oregon and Washington (means of 55 and 56 taxa/grab, 
respectively). Estuarine means by state were much lower for California (24 
taxa/grab) and Oregon (11 taxa/grab) though similar for Washington (48 
taxa/grab) (Table 3.5.3). Average species richness was very similar between 
sanctuary vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the California and 
Oregon/Washington regions (Fig. 3.5.3). 

A more detailed examination of species richness, using quartile ranges, 
further confirmed a pattern of increasing species richness along the shelf with 
decreasing latitude (Figs. 3.5.3, 3.5.5). There were 61 stations with values in the 
upper quartile of all stations (i.e., values > 100 taxa/grab). All but one of these 
sites (WA03-0015) were in California, most were in the SCB. A correlation 
analysis (SAS 2003) revealed a highly significant negative association between 
numbers of species and latitude (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = -0.61, p 
<0.0001). This is different from the pattern observed in estuaries. For example, 
the NCA-West 1999-2000 database for estuaries shows that the highest species 
richness among the three states was in Washington, especially in Puget Sound 
(Table 3.5.3; also see Partridge 2007). In fact, all estuarine stations with > 100 
taxa/grab were in Washington. The high species richness reported here for shelf 
waters, particularly those off the California coast, is consistent with an earlier 
study by Hyland et al. (1991) for offshore waters of the Santa Maria Basin, which 
showed numbers of species (> 0.5-mm size) averaging about 100 to 150/grab 
(0.1 m 2 ) at comparable outer shelf/upper slope depths under 200 m. 

The high species richness, as well as a relatively even distribution of 
species abundances within samples, also resulted in fairly high values of the 
diversity index H' (log base 2) for many stations across the region. Values 
ranged from 2.04 to 6.63/grab and averaged 5.01/grab region-wide (Table 3.5.3, 
Fig. 3.5.6). Approximately 50% of the shelf area had H' values > 4.82, and 10% 
of the area had H' values > 5.80 (Fig. 3.5.7). In comparison, mean diversity and 
the CDF 50 th percentile point for estuarine habitat along the West Coast 
correspond to lower H' values of 2.41 and 3.84, respectively (Table 3.5.3). Mean 
H' in the present shelf survey was highest in California (5.36) and lowest in 
Washington (4.27) (Fig. 3.5.7, Table 3.5.3). There were no major differences in 
mean H' between sanctuary vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the California 
and Oregon/Washington regions. 


81 


Table 3.5.1. Summary of major taxonomic groups for the west-coast shelf region 
wide. 


Taxonomic Group 

Number identifiable taxa 

% Total identifiable taxa 

Phylum Protozoa 

1 

0.1 

Phylum Porifera 

1 

0.1 

Phylum Cnidaria 

Class Hydrozoa 

10 

0.7 

Class Anthozoa 

52 

3.5 

Phylum Platyhelminthes 

9 

0.6 

Phylum Nemertea 

32 

2.2 

Phylum Nemata 

1 

0.1 

Phylum Sipuncula 

10 

0.7 

Phylum Mollusca 

Class Gastropoda 

112 

7.5 

Class Aplacophora 

10 

0.7 

Class Bivalvia 

116 

7.8 

Class Polyplacophora 

6 

0.4 

Class Scaphopoda 

9 

0.6 

Phylum Echiura 

6 

0.4 

Phylum Annelida 

Class Polychaeta 

648 

43.7 

Class Clitellata 

Subclass Hirudinea 

1 

0.1 

Subclass Oligochaeta 

1 

0.1 

Phylum Arthropoda 

Subphylum Crustacea 

Class Malacostraca 

Order Leptostraca 

3 

0.2 

Order Decapoda 

49 

3.3 

Order Mysida 

6 

0.4 

Order Cumacea 

39 

2.6 

Order Tanaidacea 

16 

1.1 

Order Isopoda 

43 

2.9 

Order Amphipoda 

202 

13.6 

Class Maxillopoda 

5 

0.3 

Class Ostracoda 

14 

0.9 

Subphylum Chelicerata 

7 

0.4 

Phylum Phoronida 

2 

0.1 

Phylum Ectoprocta 

1 

0.1 

Phylum Brachiopoda 

2 

0.1 

Phylum Echinodermata 

Class Asteroidea 

4 

0.3 

Class Ophiuroidea 

25 

1.7 

Class Echinoidea 

8 

0.5 

Class Holothuroidea 

19 

1.3 

Phylum Hemichordata 

5 

0.3 

Phylum Chordata 

7 

0.5 

Total 

1482 

100 


82 








Table 3.5.2. Comparison of the proportion of taxa within major taxonomic groups 
on the shelf vs. West Coast estuaries. Each value is the number of species 
within the corresponding taxonomic group divided by the total number of species. 


Taxonomic Group 

Shelf 

Estuaries* 

Polychaetes 

44% 

36% 

Amphipods 

14% 

14% 

Decapods 

3.3% 

3.4% 

Cumaceans 

2.6% 

2.6% 

Bivalves 

7.8% 

8.3% 

Gastropods 

7.5% 

7.8% 

Ophiuroids 

1.7% 

1.2% 

Holothurians 

1.3% 

0.7% 

Insect larvae 

0 

2.9% 

Total species 

1482 

1303 

# Grabs (0.1 m 2 each) 

259 

345 


* Based on 1999-2000 data from the EPA National Coastal Assessment- 
Western Regional Component (NCA-West) database for estuaries (Nelson et al. 
2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 2004; Hayslip et al. 2006). 


83 





Table 3.5.3. Comparison of the number of taxa, H' diversity (log 2 ), and densities (rrf 2 ) of benthic infaunal assemblages on 
the shelf vs. West Coast estuaries. 


s 0 
o ~ 

CD C 
— 0 
TO o 
0 

^ 0 

< Q_ 

0 
O = 
LO c 

0 O 

0 t- 

< CL 


X 

0 


c 

0 

0 


0 

Jc 

0 


o 

CD 


CD 

m- 


S § lo lo 

CD CD 


O O 


O O 


LO 

CO 


(/) 


0 

o ~ 

CD C 

m 0 

0 o 

0 «- 

< CL 

5 0 

O = 

lo ■£ 

0 o 
0 >- 

< Q_ 


X 

0 


CO CO 
C\l M" 


CM 


i— CO CM 
CD £ £ 


C 

0 

0 


C/5 

%= c 
0 


c/) 


E 

o 

0 
i_ 

CO 


o _0 

o -£ 
c 

$ 0 

CQ > 


O 

CO 

LO 


CO 

00 


co co o 

CO CO T- 


co 

LO 


CD CO M" LO 


o o o o 


T- CO CM CM 
Tj- LO LO 

CM CO T- CM 


LO ►. CO CM 
05 CM CM 
CO U3 T- T- 


h- 

co 


O CM O O 
CD O O CD 


CD CO CD LO 
r- CM r- CM 


CD CO LO M" 
I— LO LO CD 




0 

-JD 

I < X < 
.2^00 
CD 
0 
cc 


0 "7 

* -O 

0 TO 
% 05 


o 

CO 

LO 


CM 

CO 


CO T- CO CO 
CD M" CD CO 

cb lo lo cb 


M - M" O' 
O O CD O 

CM CM CM CO 


T- N LO 0 

o cm cq co 

LO M" LO 


CO 

LO 

CM 


O CD 
LO M" 


LO 


o 

o 

LO* 


o 

o 


CM 


o o 

CO CO CD 
CO T— 

£ r-' - 

i: lo co 


CM 

CO 

LO 


o o 


o o 

CM h- 


0 

;g 

I < cr < 
.2^00 
CO 
0 
cr 


- o 
X TO 

CD 


CO CM h~ 
LO CO ^ LO 
CO LO g 00 

o' lo' t-t cd' 

T- CO T- 


LO CO C 

"fr CM c 

CO T- T- 


o 

LO 

CM 

h- 


o 

CO 

o 

CO 


o c> o 

00 CO 52 CO 
CD O 0 O) 

cm' co' cm' 

CM T- CM 


o o o o 

I— M" CD 
LO I"- LO CO 


CO N O 
CO CO LO 
N- O- CO CO 
CO CO CM M- 


CO 

LO 

CM 


O CD 
LO M- 


LO 


0 

;g 

I < (X < 
. 2^00 
CD 
0 
X 


C/5 ^ 

Q 


C/5 

0 


< 

o 


c 

0 

c 

o 

CL 

E 

o 

o 

TO 

c 

o 

CD 

0 ^ 
QlI CD 
c O 

E o 

0 CM 

to — 

0 TO 

> 0 
I Q. 

CO 

>» 


TO 


c 

0 

E 
0 

0 . 
0 ^ 
0 O 
0 O 
< CM 


TO 

to 

TO 

o 

o 

TO 
c 
o 
-♦—» 
TO 


< 

CL 

LU 

cd 

z> 

LO 

o 

o 

CM 


SI 

LU CM 

0 —: 
-C 

-*—* 

E ® 

o c 

4= 9 

_ 0 

^ 0 
-§* 
0 


0 


o 
o 

O ‘C 

CM TO 

05 3 
CD co 
05 <1) 

T— i— 

- o 

C M— 

° 0 
"O ^ 
0 TO 
0 -Q 
TO TO 
CO to 
* -D 


CO 











Table 3.5.4. Fifty most abundant benthic taxa in the West Coast shelf survey 
region wide. Average density per m 2 , and percent frequency of occurrence 
based on 256 grabs. Classification: Native = native species; Crypto = 
cryptogenic species (of uncertain origin); Indeter = indeterminate taxa (not 
identified to a level that would allow determination of origin). 


Taxa Name 

Taxon 

Classification 

Average 

#/m 2 

% 

Frequency 

Mediomastus spp. 

Polychaete 

Indeter 

141.9 

62.9 

Axinopsida serricata 

Bivalve 

Native 

124.8 

67.2 

Magelona longicornis 

Polychaete 

Native 

105.3 

23.0 

Amphiodia urtica 

Ophiuroid 

Native 

87.5 

43.4 

Spiophanes berkeleyorum 

Polychaete 

Native 

86.8 

77.0 

Pinnixa occidentalis 

Decapoda 

Native 

82.0 

27.3 

Spiophanes bombyx 

Polychaete 

Native 

81.2 

41.8 

Euphilomedes 

Ostracod 

Native 

73.6 

46.1 

carcharodonta 

Spiophanes duplex 

Polychaete 

Native 

73.2 

44.9 

Prionospio jubata 

Polychaete 

Native 

67.2 

71.9 

Chloeia pinnata 

Polychaete 

Native 

55.0 

40.2 

Owenia fusiformis 

Polychaete 

Crypto 

48.2 

10.9 

Myriochele striolata 

Polychaete 

Native 

47.7 

10.5 

Galathowenia oculata 

Polychaete 

Crypto 

45.1 

33.2 

Ampelisca agassizi 

Amphipod 

Native 

43.4 

30.5 

Decamastus gracilis 

Polychaete 

Native 

42.0 

46.1 

Paraprionospio pinnata 

Polychaete 

Native 

39.3 

70.7 

Scoletoma luti 

Polychaete 

Native 

38.6 

31.3 

Euclymeninae sp. A 

Polychaete 

Native 

37.2 

58.6 

Amphiodia spp. 

Ophiuroid 

Indeter 

34.7 

48.0 

Sternaspis fossor 

Polychaete 

Crypto 

34.7 

46.9 

Rochefortia tumida 

Bivalve 

Native 

33.4 

41.0 

Euclymeninae 

Polychaete 

Indeter 

29.7 

49.6 

Lumbrineris cruzensis 

Polychaete 

Native 

28.6 

45.7 

Levinsenia gracilis 

Polychaete 

Crypto 

28.5 

38.3 

Ampelisca careyi 

Amphipod 

Native 

28.0 

62.5 

Pholoe glabra 

Polychaete 

Native 

26.7 

44.9 

Phoronida 

Phoronid 

Indeter 

26.7 

28.1 

Aphelochaeta glandaria 

Polychaete 

Native 

25.8 

33.2 

Paradiopatra parva 

Polychaete 

Native 

25.6 

37.1 

Prionospio lighti 

Polychaete 

Native 

25.5 

34.4 

Monticellina cryptica 

Polychaete 

Native 

23.8 

29.3 

Edwardsiidae 

Actiniarian 

Indeter 

23.6 

10.9 

Aricidea catherinae 

Polychaete 

Crypto 

23.4 

36.3 

Pseudofabriciola 

Polychaete 

Native 

23.2 

2.3 

californica _ 

Photis spp. 

Amphipod 

Indeter 

21.1 

32.8 


85 




Taxa Name 

Taxon 

Classification 

Average 

#/m 2 

% 

Frequency 

Maldane sarsi 

Polychaete 

Crypto 

20.8 

40.2 

Amphiuridae 

Ophiuroid 

Indeter 

20.6 

49.2 

Leptochelia dubia 

Tanaidacea 

Crypto 

19.7 

32.4 

Glycera nana 

Polychaete 

Native 

18.7 

53.5 

Nemertea 

Nemertean 

Indeter 

18.5 

27.3 

Rhepoxynius 

Amphipod 

Native 

17.5 

19.1 

boreovariatus 

Polygordius spp. 

Polychaete 

Indeter 

17.4 

1.2 

Leitoscoloplos 

Polychaete 

Native 

17.0 

32.0 

pugettensis 

Acila castrensis 

Bivalve 

Native 

16.6 

24.2 

Aphelochaeta monilaris 

Polychaete 

Native 

16.3 

31.3 

Scalibregma californicum 

Polychaete 

Native 

15.9 

35.9 

Fabriciinae 

Polychaete 

Indeter 

15.7 

2.0 

Ampelisca brevisimulata 

Amphipod 

Native 

15.4 

34.8 

Macoma carlottensis 

Bivalve 

Native 

14.8 

21.1 


86 







Percent of Abundance 




CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS 


■H Polychaeta 
HI Crustacea 
i . l Mollusca 
l l Miscellaneous 


Figure 3.5.1. Comparison of percent faunal composition by abundance among 
(A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) 
California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and 
Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 


87 





























Percent of Taxa Percent of Taxa 




CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS 


■■■ Polychaeta 
■■■ Crustacea 
k.&Sl Mollusca 
i i Miscellaneous 


Figure 3.5.2. Comparison of percent faunal composition by taxa among (A) all, 
California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. 


88 












































Species Richness (#/grab) Species Richness (#/grab) 



Percent of Area with 
Benthic Species Richness 
(# species/0.1 m )grab): 

l I < 54 (firstquartile) 
feas 54 - 76 (second quartile) 

I _ .1 77- 100 (third quartile) 

> 100 (fourth quartile) 


b 

c 

Q 

© 


All 


California 

Oregon 

Washington 


140 


B. 



CA: NMS CA: nonNMS 



OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS 


1 

© 

Q 


CA: NMS 


CA: nonNMS 

OCNMS 


OR-WA: nonNMS 


Figure 3.5.3. Comparison of benthic species richness (mean no. taxa/grab + 1 
SD) among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, 
and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and 
Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. Pie charts show quartile 
ranges of values. 


89 



































Figure 3.5.4. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 
Shelf vs. benthic species richness (# taxa/0.1-m 2 grab). 


90 










Species Richness 

D < 54 (lower 25th quartile) 
O 54 - 76 (25-50th quartile) 

G 77 - 100 (50-75th quartile) 
• > 100 (upper 25th quartile) 


Figure 3.5.5. Map illustrating the distribution of benthic species richness (# taxa 
per 0.1-m 2 grab) throughout the West Coast region. 


91 





Diversity (H') Diversity (H 1 ) 



Percent of Area with 
Benthic Diversity(H'): 

i I < 4.545 (first quartile) 

4.545 - 5.480 ( second quartile) 

I-1 5.481 - 5.712 (third quartile) 

> 5.712 (fourth quartile) 


£ 

£ 

Q 


All 

California 

Oregon 

Washington 



Figure 3.5.6. Comparison of benthic species diversity (FT, mean + 1 SD) among 
(A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) 
California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and 
Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. Pie charts show quartile 
ranges of values. 


92 







































100 - 


co 

0 ) 


c 

( 1 ) 

o 

l_ 

CD 

Q_ 

0) 

> 


-q 40 


_co 

=3 

E 

D 

o 


80 - 


60 - 


20 - 



Cumulative Percent Area 
95% Confidence Interval 


4 

H' 


Figure 3.5.7. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 
Shelf vs. Shannon-Wiener H' (log 2 ) diversity index. 


93 












3.5.3 Abundance and Dominant Taxa 


A total of 99,135 individual specimens were collected across the 256 
stations (259 0.1-m 2 grab samples) throughout the region. Densities ranged from 
540 to 22,980 rrf 2 and averaged 3,788 rrf 2 (Fig. 3.5.8, Table 3.5.3, Appendix 
Table 4). On a spatial basis, about 50% of the shelf area had densities > 3,080 
rrf 2 and about 10% of the area had densities > 7,250 rrf 2 (Fig. 3.5.9). In 
comparison, the NCA-West estuarine data (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 
2004; Hayslip et al. 2006) show much higher densities of benthic infauna in 
estuaries along the West Coast (e.g., mean of 10,653 rrf 2 and range of 0 to 
415,820 rrf 2 ) (Table 3.5.3). Flowever, the higher mean and maximum densities in 
the latter case are due to a greater frequency of high-density patches in these 
shallower estuarine systems. Spatially, while 10% of the estuarine area along 
the West Coast had high densities >15,100 rrf 2 , 50% of the area had lower 
densities < 4,100 rrf 2 , which is only moderately higher than that estimated for the 
corresponding percentage of shelf area (3,080 rrf 2 ). Densities on the shelf in 
excess of 10,653 rrf 2 , the estuarine mean density, were limited to about 2% of 
the shelf area. Densities of benthic fauna in the present offshore survey, 
averaged by state, were highest in California (mean of 4,351 m' 2 ) and lowest in 
Oregon (mean of 2,310 rrf 2 ) (Fig. 3.5.8, Table 3.5.3). Mean densities were 
slightly higher at NMS stations vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the California 
and Oregon/Washington regions. 

The 50 most abundant taxa found in shelf waters throughout the region 
are listed in Table 3.5.4. The 10 most abundant members on this list include the 
polychaetes Mediomastus spp., Magelona longicornis, Spiophanes 
berkeleyorum, Spiophanes bombyx, Spiophanes duplex, and Prionospio jubata ; 
the bivalve Axinopsida serricata ; the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica ; the decapod 
Pinnixa occidentalism and the ostracod Euphilomedes carcharodonta. 
Mediomastus spp. and A. serricata were the two most abundant taxa overall. 
There are clear differences between these dominant shelf fauna and those found 
in estuarine habitats along the West Coast. As an example, with the exception of 
Mediomastus spp., none of these 50 shelf species also appear on the list of 
dominant (10 most abundant) estuarine fauna reported by Nelson et al. (2005). 
The latter estuarine list (based only on 1999 data from the NCA-West database, 
thus excluding Puget Sound, the San Francisco estuary, and the main stem of 
the Columbia River) included the amphipods Americorophium spinicorne, A. 
salmonis, and Eogammarus confervicolus complex; oligochaetes; and the 
polychaetes Streblospio benedicti, Mediomastus sp, Mediomastus californiensis, 
Pygospio elegans , Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, and Neanthes limnicola 
(Nelson et al. 2005). Thus, while estuaries have been found to be dominated by 
polychaetes, amphipods, and oligochaetes, the shelf environment was 
characterized by a broader range of taxonomic groups, including the occurrence 
of bivalves, ophiuroids, decapods, and ostracods as dominant members in 
addition to polychaetes. Another notable characteristic of these dominant shelf 
fauna is their relatively low densities. Average densities of the 10 most abundant 


94 


shelf taxa ranged from 67 to 142 m' 2 (Table 3.5.4). In comparison, average 
densities of the 10 most abundant taxa in estuaries were much higher, ranging 
from 197 to 5,242 m' 2 (Nelson et al. 2005). 

In addition to inshore-offshore differences, there were notable regional 
variations in the dominant offshore fauna. Though many of these fauna have 
broad geographic distributions throughout the region (see next section), except 
for the polychaete Spiophanes bombyx, the same taxa did not appear as 
members of the 10 most abundant taxa consistently across all three states 
(Table 3.5.5A). The closest similarities were between Oregon and Washington. 
For example, the polychaete Mediomastus spp. and ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica 
were the two most abundant taxa in California, while in Oregon and Washington 
the same two species, the polychaete Magelona longicornis and bivalve 
Axinopsida serricata, were the two most abundant taxa. There also was less 
variation between NMS vs. non-sanctuary status. For example, at least half of 
the 10 most abundant taxa in NMSs were also dominant in corresponding non¬ 
sanctuary waters (Table 3.5.5B). 


95 


(3-U1/#) X)!SU8Q ^m) <,!suea 


8000 


6000 


4000 


2000 - 



Percent of Area with 
Benthic Density: 

I I < 2,140 (first quartile) 
sggsaq 2,140 - 3,270 (second quartile) 
3,280 - 4,750 (third quartile) 

> 4,750 (fourth quartile) 

All 

California 
Oregon 
Washington 


1000 


800 


600 


400 - 


200 - 



CA: NMS 


CA: nonNMS 


OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS 


Figure 3.5.8. Comparison of benthic density (mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, 

California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California 
NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon 
non-NMS sample locations. Pie charts show quartile ranges of values. 


96 







































Figure 3.5.9. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 
Shelf vs. benthic abundance (number of individuals/m 2 ). 


97 











Table 3 5 5 Comparison of dominant (10 most abundant) taxa among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample 
locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample 
locations. 


0 o- 
sS <D 


c 

03 

CD 


03 

X 

03 


cr 

CD 


CM ^ CO CO o ^ 

O) in cm to co 


■*J-Tj-lD03b- , 'Ct' 
00 00 CO CD CO 
CO CM CM T- -r- T- 


TO 

E 

o 

o 


.co 


03 b 
E 5 
CO 


a 2 
c- co 
co 
CD 
03 


CD 

5 2 2 

£§ 0 
O 03 £ 

e 03 9> 

5 CD S 

^ o 


o 

A 

CO 03 

03 CD 

£ ° 

CD CO 

A 

Q_ 03 
• 2 E" 

Q E 

co 


CD 

H-w 

E 

o 

A 

8 

CD 

A 

o 


00 CM 
CD CD 


CM « 
Sj CD 


is 

CD 

"3 
o 
o 

CD 
E 
03 CD 


a 
9- CD 
O O 
UJ 


c 

03 

CD 


CT 

o 


CD 

X 

CD 


O CD CO ID 
in (D s s cd in 


b- 03 r- 
0 CM O 


03 CD CD 


E 

p 


CO 

s 

o 

o 

03 

e 

o 

CD 

e 

o 

"5 

03 

CD 


CT 

CD 


CD 

CD 

O 

E 

03 

CO 

CD 

TO 

<0 

a 

o 

e 

X 

<C 


iS ° 

CD .TO 
P 03 
TO A 

° TO 
CD JO 


E CO 
03 03 

£ £ 
o j2 
x- -p 
2 P 

TO o 

CD 5 

CD co 


iS 

CD 

JO 'A 
O P 

O CD 

a E 

CO O 
§ 03 

o o 
e o 
CL CO 


c 

03 

CD 


CD 

- X 
< CD 

O h- 


CO CO O M" 

S N N CD CD 


s co co 03 m 
_ 


CM 


O' CO 


CD 


„ CT 
5? CD 


CD 

CD 


CL 

Cl 

C/3 

CO 

o 

CO 

CD 

E 

o 

"6 

03 


.CO 

S 

e 

03 

TO 

TO 

to 

o 

CD 

X 


E 

5 

o 

X £ 
03 03 

Q--E 

O 03 
TO JO 


A E 

~ E -S 
5 ^ £ 


co co 
03 03 

e e 

CD CD 
A A 
A CL 
.O O 
5. A A 
CD 00 O 


iS 

to 

e 

e 

a 

.TO 

TO 

o 


CO S CO CO N N 
CD CD CM ^ b- CM 


C/3 

03 

O 

o 

"c/3 

CD 

> CD 

> X 
CD 

< h~ 


CM ID ID 
T CM O 


iS 

9- TO 
CL -t 
co 


TO 

CO 

TO 

co 

a 

o 

e 

X 


•53 

E 

■Is 


CO N CM 
CD CD 00 


E 

S 

o 

3b 

TO co 


TO 

•E 

TO 

JO 

co 

TO 

E 

TO 

A 

a 

o 

A 


TO 

c 

TO 

TO 


03 

to 2 

E 2 

o .2 

03 A 

03 A 
TO £ 

§ <55 CO CL 


E 

o 

TO 


O 

£ 

-52 o 

TO o 

CD CO 


03 b- 

CM id 


CM CO 
ID M" 


3b 

JO 

0 2 

A £ 

to o 

to A 

£ TO 

£ S 

o2 

AO 

CO 


b~ co 

r— CO 


CO b- 
b- b- 


TO 

TO TO 
O TO 

2 -Q 

co .2. 


TO 

TO 

A 

O 

O 


CM CD 


t- O’ 
00 b- 


CM 

CD 


CM 

b- 


O 

b- 


3b 

co to 1 

03 b 


CO 

o 


TO 


X o 


TO 


O 

TO C3 
A A 
CL 


03 

CO 


O 

M- 


O 

TO 

TO 

A 


TO 

£ 

TO 

A 

£ 

TO 

A 

O 

A 

8 

TO 

CL 


O’ 

ID 


O’ 

b- 


03 

CO 


.TO 

TO 

E 

TO 

T3 

TO 

o 

o 

TO 

e 

TO 

TO 

TO 


03 

ID 


O 

A 

TO 

o 

^.2 
5 a 


A 

iS o 

^0 p- O) 

0 ) S ^ 

A -2 cp 

- 9 TO 

2 £ 
CD 2 
A A 
TO A 
b O 1 
TO — 


TO 

E 

o 

A 

§■ 

UJ 


ID 


CO 

b- 


<5d 


CM 

t^ 


b- 

CD 


A 

E TO 

9 TO C 
TO O 
TO A A 
TO TO O 

TO 2 TO 

x- O A 
P-A 2 

•2 A P 

A A o 

co uj 


X 

TO 

A 

o 

A 

TO 

TO 

C 

TO 

A 

A 

.O 

CO" 


TO 

TO 

A 

0 ! 


& 

o 

c 

.0 

Ql 


CT 
^ <D 


C 

CD 

CD 


ID CO t b- O 
t- CM CM CM 


CM 03 ID ^ id 

S S - 05 ^ 


03 


03 

ID 


CD 


CD 

ID 


CO 


C 

o 

c 


cc 

O 


CD 

X 

CD 


CT 

CD 

L_ 

LL 


C 

CD 

CD 


TO 


TO 

TO 

O 

jO 


TO 

■ki 

TO 

"3 

TO 

O 


TO CD 

TO - 


TO TO 

I 

§ 2 o 

2 A a 

TO ° 

03 C iS 

TO ^ TO 

5 ^ CD 


0 ! 


TO 

TO <D 
E C 
o P 
2 A TO 
TO A2 ^ 

O ■§ TO A 2 

O AA 

CO CO 


o 

UJ 


CO 


03 ID ID 


Xf I— CJ3 1 Dt— 
CO M’ ID ID 03 
CO CO CM CM T- 


c o 


o 

o 


CD 

X 

CD 


„ cr 
5§ <D 


c 

CD 

CD 


iS ^ 

"e 2 P 
§ E o 
o 2 a 

!t= w TO 
§ «D TO 

E 2 c 
2 a-c 

TO c .O 


TO 

5 I 

TO § 
TO 2 
TO 03 
03 C 
TO O 


TO 


TO 

I 2 

TO 0 

A A 

E 2 


M- CM O CM CO 
CO CO CO CO CM 


03 1^ 

00 A O O 


CO 

00 


CO 


a 

o 

c 

< 

O 


CD 

X 

CD 


cr 
0 


CD 

0 


X 

TO 

¥ 

A 

TO 

TO 

E 

TO 

A 


E 

.03 

o 

3b 

TO 

Ci| 
SOLA 
C/3 


TO 
A 
O __ 

A A 2 
A O A 

E a 2 

^ co § 


TO 

A 

TO 
TO 
C 
TO 
A 
A 
O 

A A 
CO O 


TO 

TO 

C 

c 

A 

TO 


TO 

O 


CO O 


03 


b- M- 


b T- 0 O ffi 0 
CM CO O O O 
M- CM t- t- 1 - 


E 

p 


co 


< 

o 

CD 


0 

X 

0 


.TO 

Q. TO 
A 
TO 


O 

to" .52 


c 

TO 

TO A) - 

E 5 J5 w 


TO 

■E 

TO 

(13 A 


O 

8 
A 
TO 

TO 2 
C TO 
TO TO 


A P 

9- TO 

2 o 

a a 2 

hi co Q 


TO 

$ 


2 

TO 

"3 

o 

o 

.0 

E 

TO 

O 

A 

TO 

TO 

CD 


A 


CM 

00 


.TO 

TO 

E 

TO 

A 

O 

O 

o 

TO 

.X 

5 

c 

A 


CM 


2 

TO 

C 

E 

A 

.0 

TO 

O 

A 

CD 


00 


ID ID 


0 

E TO E 

03 TO O 

b A A 

° ^ 8 

TO 


E TO 

O A 

^ P 


2 
TO 
A 
.03 

o 

A 
TO 
O 
E 

o -8 


'd- CD CD 
ID 'cT CO 


A 


O 

A 


TO 
TO 
E 
TO 0 
TO ^ 
E 


Cl 

Cl 

C/3 

TO 


A 


O 


TO TO 
TO 'PS 
A § 

E ^ 

E p 

.-§ TO 

A -C 

f 8 

A o 


_ TO A 

0 0 o 

A o ~ 

.o-SJQ. 
A O E 
CD <C ^ 


03 O 00 


CO 03 
O) OO CD 


TO 

03 

TO 

E 

TO 

O 

A • 2 
m A 0 
8 Cl A 
TO 
O 

TO 
O 
.TO 

TO 

A 


C/3 

TO 

03 


TO 

03 

I 

o 
A 
Lp 0 


o 

A 


<C A 


A 

A 


CM 


CO 

b- 


o- O' 
CO T— 


CM OO b 
b- CD CD 


TO 


TO TO 
TO 


X 

3b TO 
-Q TO 
O 


TO 


A • 


S p 

ri TO 
A -C 

9-8 

A S 


CM 


03 

03 


TO 

2 

"to 

A 

TO 


TO 

A 


TO 

2 

2 

TO 

A 

O 

O 

A 


A 
TO 
.O 


o 

A 
TO 
TO 

&J 

§f-s 

o 2 b 

E A^ 

A co 5 


co 


03 ID CO 
03 CO 00 


2 

2 2 to 

2 0 o 

2 A - p 

TO 


0 -2 


TO o A 
TO q. 2 
TOO 
O A 
E p _ 
O TO P 

TO 


5 A A 


00 

CD 






























3.5.4 Biogeographical Distributions 

The 2003 probabilistic survey is one of the few regional-scale studies of 
the benthos on the continental shelf of the U.S. Pacific Coast. As such, the data 
are well suited to addressing a number of biogeographic questions. The first 
question addressed is whether the shelf fauna have restricted along-coast 
distributions or whether they have wide latitudinal distributions. To address this 
question, we utilized the Marine Ecosystems of the World (MEOW) 
biogeographic schema recently proposed by The Nature Conservancy (Spalding 
et al. 2007). The MEOW scheme is hierarchical, with 12 Realms composed of 
62 provinces, which in turn are composed of 232 ecoregions. Based on this 
scheme, we therefore evaluated the presence of species across the seven 
ecoregions of the Temperate Northern Pacific Realm that border the U.S. Pacific 
Coast (Fig. 3.5.10). These seven ecoregions include all the ecoregions of the 
Cold Temperate Northwest Pacific Province and the northernmost ecoregion in 
the Warm Temperate Northeast Pacific Province, and span from the upper half of 
the Baja Peninsula in Mexico to the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. Ecoregions within 
the Arctic Realm bordering northern Alaska are not considered, nor are the two 
other ecoregions of the Baja Peninsula that do not border the United States. 

Appendix Table 5 summarizes the biogeographic distributions, by 
ecoregion, of the 39 most abundant taxa that were identified to species (from 
Table 3.5.4). Distributional data were derived from the present study, previous 
EMAP surveys including unpublished data from Alaskan surveys (Max Hober and 
Douglas Dasher), and the Pacific Coast Ecosystem Information System (PCEIS). 
PCEIS is a database synthesizing the distributions of native and nonindigenous 
marine/estuarine species of the Pacific Coast being developed by EPA and the 
USGS (Lee and Reusser 2008). Of the 39 abundant species collected along the 
California-Oregon-Washington shelf, almost 95% of them were found in both the 
SCB and Northern California ecoregions, while 87% were found in both the 
Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregion and in the Puget 
Trough/ Georgia Basin ecoregion. The percentage of species occurring off the 
coast of Canada (North American Pacific Fijordland ecoregion) and the Gulf of 
Alaska drops to about 72% and 59%, respectively. With 14 of the 39 species 
reported from the Aleutians, the percentage of the species reported declines to 
36% in the most northern ecoregion of the Temperate Northern Pacific Realm. 

These distributional patterns potentially could be confounded by 
taxonomic uncertainties. For example, seven of the species in Table 3.5.4 are 
classified as cryptogenic species, which are species of uncertain origin (Carlton 
1996). All of these cryptogenic species occur in more than one of the MEOW 
provinces and at least one possible explanation for their wide distributions is that 
they actually represent a suite of sibling species that can not be readily 
distinguished morphologically. Even for natives there can be confusion about the 
specific identity of a species. For example, the native amphipod Ampelisca 
careyi may be a variant of A. unsocalae (Chapman 2007). To reduce this source 


99 


of uncertainty, the analysis was repeated excluding 14 problematic species 
(Appendix Table 5). Removal of these problematic species reduces the 
percentage species overlap in all the ecoregions but did not substantially alter 
the general biogeographic pattern. Southern and Northern California ecoregions 
still had the highest percentage of species, with 92% and 88% of the species, 
respectively. As with the full set of species, a high percentage (> 75%) of the 
species were found in Puget Sound and along the coasts of Oregon and 
Washington, with a reduction northward up into the Gulf of Alaska and then a 
further reduction in the Aleutian ecoregion. 

Another source of uncertainty in defining biogeographic ranges is the 
different levels of sampling along the coast. The SCB ecoregion has been 
intensively sampled (see SCAMIT 2001), as has Puget Sound. Northern 
California, Oregon, and Washington shelves have not been sampled as 
intensively, although the fauna of this section of the coast is reasonably well 
known (e.g., Carlton 2007). The data for northern Canada (N. American Pacific 
Fijordland ecoregion) were derived primarily from the dataset for the Haida Gwaii 
archipelago 

(http://gcmd.nasa. gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=caobis&MetadataTyp 
e=0&KeywordPath=&MetadataView=Full&Entryld=OBIS.GwaiiJnv). While 
limited in spatial extent, this dataset includes information on more than 2,500 
taxa. The Gulf of Alaska distributions were derived primarily from the EMAP 
2002 survey in South-central Alaska (Saupe et al. 2005), unpublished data from 
the 2004 Southeast Alaska EMAP survey, and pre- and post-Exxon Valdez oil 
spill surveys of Prince William Sound (Hines and Ruiz 2000, Hoberg and Feder 
2002). These various sources should be adequate to detect the occurrence of 
abundant species in most cases. In comparison, the sources for the Aleutians 
were more sparse and included unpublished data from the 2006-7 EMAP 
surveys in the Aleutians, reports on Alaskan and Canadian bivalves (Bernard 
1967, Macpherson 1971, Baxter 1987), and the Global Biodiversity Information 
Facility (GBIF; http://data.qbif.org/ ). It is possible that the absence of some 
species from Aleutian ecoregion is result of the more limited sampling in this 
region. 


Even with these sources of uncertainty, it can be concluded that the 
majority of the abundant benthic species on the California-Oregon-Washington 
shelf have wide latitudinal distributions along the Pacific Coast of the United 
States. All three of the abundant bivalves, the pinnixid crab Pinnixa occidentalis, 
six polychaetes, and possibly the amphipod A. careyi extend from Southern 
California into the Aleutians. Another eight species have been reported from 
Southern California to the Gulf of Alaska. Conversely, only the sabellid 
polychaete Pseudofabriciola californica was limited to a single ecoregion, while 
the amphipod Rhepoxynius boreovariatus and the polychaetes Myriochele 
striolata and possibly Monticellina cryptica have been reported from only two of 
the ecoregions. 


100 



While the majority of species have wide latitudinal ranges, most species 
show differences in abundance among the three ecoregions within the 2003 
EMAP sampling frame. The polychaete Magelona longicornis and bivalve 
Axinopsida serricata are examples of species with maximum densities in the 
northern portion of the sampling frame, the Oregon, Washington, Vancouver 
Shelf & Coast ecoregion (Figs. 3.5.11, 3.5.12). The ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica is 
an example of a species with maximum densities in the SCB ecoregion (Fig. 
3.5.13), while Pinnixa occidentalis has its maximum densities in the middle of the 
coast, in the Northern California ecoregion (Fig. 3.5.14). 

The second question that we address is whether there is a unique shelf 
fauna different from that found in Puget Sound or the coastal estuaries. The 
Puget Sound ecoregion has a high species overlap with the shelf fauna, with 
87% of the abundant species on the shelf also reported from Puget Sound 
(Appendix Table 5). While portions of Puget Sound are estuarine, much of Puget 
Sound resembles the shelf with its greater depth and high salinity, which 
presumably explains much of the species’ overlap. Three of the five species not 
found in Puget Sound were not found along the Oregon-Washington coast, 
suggesting that they are limited to more southern latitudes in general, rather than 
from Puget Sound specifically. The other two abundant species ( Chloeia pinnata 
and Paradiopatra parva) not found in Puget Sound are found in the Oregon, 
Washington, Vancouver Shelf & Coast ecoregion. However, Chloeia pinnata 
was not found north of 44 degrees in the present survey and may not be well 
adapted to the most northern latitudes within the ecoregion. In contrast, 
Paradiopatra parva was found in the present survey up to 48 degrees latitude, 
suggesting that there are specific conditions within Puget Sound that limit its 
distribution or abundance. 

Less expected was the extent of faunal overlap with the coastal estuaries. 
Almost 85% (33) of the most abundant shelf species have been reported at least 
once from the coastal estuaries of California, Oregon, or Washington exclusive of 
Puget Sound. Thus, it appears that the habitat requirements for many of the 
shelf species are sufficiently broad to allow at least colonization in estuarine 
ecosystems, though it is not clear whether they establish self-maintaining 
populations in all cases. Of the habitat requirements likely to limit shelf species 
from estuaries, the lower and variable salinities in estuaries are likely to be 
critical, if not the most critical, factors. Among the species reported from 
estuaries, one possibility is that they are able to colonize only the high-salinity 
Southern California estuaries, such as San Diego, which are euhaline (> 30 psu) 
over most of their area. Of the 33 species found in estuaries, eight ( Prionospio 
jubata, Paradiopatra parva, Monticellina cryptica, Aricidea catherinae, 
Pseudofabriciola californica, Maldane sarsi, Scalibregma californicum, and 
Ampelisca brevisimulata) have been reported only from Southern California 
estuaries. In comparison to the Southern California estuaries, small estuaries in 
the Pacific Northwest undergo large salinity shifts both seasonally and tidally, so 
that species found in small estuaries are likely to have relatively broad salinity 


101 


tolerances. Based on the 1999, 2001 and 2002 EMAP surveys (Nelson et al. 
2004, 2005, 2007), as well as an EPA survey of the benthos in small estuaries 
(Lee et al. 2003, unpublished data), a species list of 137 species has been 
developed for the small estuaries of the Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast 
and Shelf ecoregion. Of the 33 abundant shelf species found in estuaries, eight 
(Spiophanes bombyx, Owenia fusiform is, Paraprionospio pinnata, Rochefortia 
tumida, Prionospio lighti, Leptochelia dubia, and Leitoscoloplos pugettensis) 
were found in these small estuaries. 

These biogeographic patterns suggest that the abundant shelf species 
can be broken into three broad salinity-tolerance groups. The 14 species not 
found within estuaries or only within Southern California estuaries can be 
classified as putative stenohaline species. The eight species found within the 
small estuaries would have the largest relative salinity tolerances, while the 
remaining 11 species found in moderate and large estuaries outside of Southern 
California presumably would have intermediate salinity tolerances. While factors 
other than salinity limit species’ distributions, biogeographical patterns offer an 
approach to generating preliminary relative salinity tolerances for a large number 
of species. 

The present analysis draws information from both the quantitative 
EMAP/NCA survey and from qualitative reports of species’ distributions, with 
each approach providing a different insight into a species’ habitat requirements. 
Biogeographic distributions (Appendix Table 5) can be considered an indicator of 
species’ broad tolerances while the distributional shifts in abundance (Figs. 

3.5.11 - 3.5.14) can be considered an indicator of species’ habitat preferences. 
Thus, the wide latitudinal and estuarine distributions of most species are 
suggestive of wide habitat tolerances among these abundant shelf species. 
However, the pattern of high abundance occurring in only one or two ecoregions 
as observed for several species (e.g., P. californica, M. longicornis, C. pinnata 
and P. occidentalis) suggests a substantially reduced preferred habitat range for 
this set of abundant species. Presumably, species with a more limited preferred 
habitat range would be relatively more susceptible to climate change than those 
with wide ranges. However, species’ responses to sea-surface temperature 
increases are complex and may vary among cold-water and warm-water species 
(e.g., Lima et al. 2007). Nonetheless, future work on comparing species’ 
biogeographic and preferred habitat ranges with sea-surface temperature 
patterns (e.g., MODIS) by ecoregion is one potential avenue to evaluating 
relative risk to climate change for coastal species. It is worth noting that such 
analyses are greatly facilitated by the continuing evolution of biological 
information systems at global (e.g., GBIF) and regional (e.g., PCEIS) scales. 


v. 


102 



Bering Sea 


NE Pacific Marine Ecoregions 

Aleutian Islands 
Gulf of Alaska 

: 5 North American Pacific Fijordland 
Northern California 

Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf 
Puget Trough/Georgia Basin 
Southern California Bight 


I Nautical Miles 


0 125 250 


500 


170°0'0"W 


160°0'0"W 


150°0'0"W 


140°0'0"W 


130°0'0"W 


120°0'0"W 


Figure 3.5.10. Marine ecoregions bordering the Pacific Coast of the United 

States from Southern California through the Aleutian Islands based on the 
MEOW biogeographic schema (Spalding et al. 2007). The ecoregions 
constituting the Cold Temperate Northeast Pacific Realm are the Aleutian 
Islands, Gulf of Alaska, North American Pacific Fijordland, Puget Trough/ 
Georgia Basin, Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf, and 
Northern California. The Southern California Bight ecoregion falls in the 
Warm Temperate Northeast Pacific Realm. 


103 
























Magelona longicornis 


250 


200 


CN4 

E 

- 150 


a> 

o 

c 

<z 

c 100 
3 
■O 
< 


50 


0 

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 

Latitude 



- w - 

♦ 

1 

, ♦ 


1 

1 

♦ 

1 

1 ♦ ♦ ♦ 


1 

♦ 

1 ♦ 

! ♦ 

• * ♦ ♦ ♦ 


| ♦ 

♦ 

1 

1 

a ♦ ♦ ♦ 


. • ; 

•: * *. 

■ ♦ ♦ * 

-*1-,-*-,-1 1 *-~ i-» of** i 


Figure 3.5.11. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the polychaete Magelona 

longicornis. The solid vertical line is the boundary between the Southern 
California Bight ecoregion and Northern California ecoregion. The dashed 
line is the boundary between the Northern California ecoregion and 
Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregion. 


200 


180 


160 


~ 140 

CM 

E 

T 120 
o 

8 ioo 

C 
f0 

c 80 

3 

n 

< 60 


40 


20 


0 

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 

Latitude 


Axinopsida serricata 







♦ 









♦ 



♦ 

♦ ♦ ♦ 



♦ 

♦ ♦ 



♦ 

♦ V* ♦♦ 

:: 


* t ** 

* ♦ ♦ ♦ •*/ 

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦, ♦ 

_L«AL5, 

.-!•»<*:• , • , . 

♦ ♦ ♦*** / ♦ t 

• ♦ * * :* »t * ♦ 

t !-* l« +*• * 1-^-,- 


Figure 3.5.12. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the bivalve Axinopsida 

serricata. The solid vertical line is the boundary between the Southern 
California Bight and Northern California ecoregions. The dashed line is the 
boundary between the Northern California and Oregon, Washington, 
Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregions. 


104 





















Amphiodia urtica 


100 


90 


80 


E 

r 60 

o 

8 50 

c 

a 

"c 40 

3 

-Q 

< 30 


20 


10 


0 

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 

Latitude 


♦ 

♦ 

-r------ 

1 


r --— 

i 

♦♦ 

i 

f ♦ 

—♦ ♦ 

i 

i 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ ♦ 

i 

♦ ♦ 

-♦-*—*— 

i 

♦ 1 

♦ f 1 

♦ 

! ♦ t 

i 

4» 

♦ ^ 

i 

♦ * . 

♦ ♦♦ 

* * \ ^ 


♦ ♦ ♦ 

* t 

*♦ ♦ % . • ♦ ♦ 

♦ ♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦ . .*. • 

1 '-n-' * i-*—i—■—F-r-1-1-,-,-.-.— 


Figure 3.5.13. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica. 
The solid vertical line is the boundary between the Southern California 
Bight ecoregion and Northern California ecoregion. The dashed line is the 
boundary between the Northern California ecoregion and Oregon, 
Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregion. 


Pinnixa occidentalis 


300 


250 


£ 200 


8 150 
c 

TO 

TJ 

C 

1 ioo 


50 


0 

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 



-- ! --- 

♦ ■ 

1 


1 

a 

■ 


a 

♦ a 

♦ i 


♦ 1 

♦ g 

♦ 1 

♦ 


■ 

♦ ♦ « ♦ i 

♦ ♦ , 

♦♦ ♦ 

*>■»* 

♦ ♦ ♦ 

1 

♦ ♦ 

♦ ♦ % 

—i-«- ♦«**-1-♦ t 1 ♦ i-i ♦ i-1*--,-*—•-,— 


Latitude 


Figure 3.5.14. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the decapod Pinnixa 

occidentalis. The solid vertical line is the boundary between the Southern 
California Bight ecoregion and Northern California ecoregion. The dashed 
line is the boundary between the Northern California ecoregion and 
Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregion. 


105 









































3.5.5 Nonindigenous Species 

Taxa were classified as native, nonindigenous, cryptogenic, indeterminate, 
or unclassified. Cryptogenic species are species of uncertain origin (Carlton, 
1996) and may include potential introductions, sibling species, or species that 
have yet to be sufficiently well resolved taxonomically over their global range. 
Indeterminate taxa are those not identified with sufficient taxonomic resolution to 
classify as native, nonindigenous, or cryptogenic (Lee et al. 2003). Unclassified 
species are those that have yet to be analyzed sufficiently to render a final 
classification. The classifications used here follow the Pacific Ecosystem 
Information System (PCEIS), a geo-referenced database of native and 
nonindigenous species of the Northeast Pacific being developed by the EPA and 
USGS (Lee and Reusser 2008). 

Of the 1,108 taxa identified to species, 13 species are currently classified 
as nonindigenous (Table 3.5.6), though there are uncertainties about the 
taxonomic resolution of several of these species. In addition, another 121 
species are classified as cryptogenic and 208 species are unclassified. The 
taxonomic uncertainties with the putative nonindigenous species and the large 
number of cryptogenic and unclassified species reflect both the lack of detailed 
analysis of the invasion status of shelf species as well as the difficulties inherent 
in harmonizing taxonomy on a global scale. Thus the present analysis should be 
considered preliminary until additional information becomes available on the 
taxonomy and classification of these uncertain species. 

The 13 nonindigenous species constitute only 1.2% of the taxa that were 
identified to species or, excluding the cryptogenic and unclassified species, 1.7% 
of the native species. Even with the uncertainty over the classification of some 
species, the number of nonindigenous species appears to be much lower on the 
shelf than in the estuarine ecosystems of the Pacific Coast. For example, 42 
nonindigenous species were found in the probabilistic survey of tidal wetlands of 
the Pacific Coast (Nelson et al. 2007a), while over 200 nonindigenous species 
have been found in the San Francisco Estuary (Cohen and Carlton 1995). 
Additionally, the nonindigenous species were in low abundance. None of the 
nonindigenous species were included in the 50 most abundant taxa (Table 
3.5.4), and combined they constituted only 0.4% of the total individuals or 0.7% 
of the abundance of the natives. This is in contrast to many Pacific Coast 
estuaries, where nonindigenous species constitute a substantial if not major 
portion of the total abundance (Nelson et al. 2005), and from the San Francisco 
Estuary in particular, where nonindigenous species are the numerical dominants 
in most of the benthic assemblages (Lee et al. 2003). The most abundant 
nonindigenous species were the spionid polychaete Laonice cirrata and the 
ampharetid polychaete Anobothrus gracilis, which had average abundances of 
0.40 and 0.29 individuals per grab, respectively (Table 3.5.6). While neither of 
these species was abundant, both were moderately frequent, occurring in 23% 


106 


and 15% of the samples. However, none of the other nonindigenous species 
occurred in more than 7% of the samples. 

One similarity between the shelf nonindigenous species and those in 
coastal estuaries and Puget Sound is the predominance of non-native spionid 
polychaetes. Five of the 13 nonindigenous species on the shelf are spionids (L 
cirrata, D. bidentata, D. caulleryi, D. quadrilobata, and P. paucibranchiata), while 
14 nonindigenous spionids have been reported from coastal waters (Lee and 
Reusser 2008). However, the shelf and estuarine assemblages differ in the 
identity of the dominant spionid invaders. In comparison to Laonice and the 
Dipolydora species on the shelf, the most frequently occurring nonindigenous 
spionids in estuaries are Polydora cornuta, Pseudopolydora kempi, 
Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata and Streblospio benedicti. Although P. 
paucibranchiata was found on the shelf, it was reported from only two of the 256 
samples. Another notable difference between shelf and estuarine invaders is the 
absence of the three most widespread estuarine invaders, the amphipods 
Grandidierella japonica and Monocorophium insidiosum and the bivalve Mya 
arenaria. Monocorophium acherusicum is also one of the most frequently 
occurring invaders in coastal estuaries, and though it was found on the shelf, it 
apparently has a very low abundance, since only a single individual was 
reported. 

Future resolution of the taxonomy and native ranges of the shelf fauna will 
reduce the uncertainty in evaluating the extent of invasion along the coast. 
Nonetheless, this preliminary analysis indicates that the shelf benthos is 
substantially less invaded than estuaries along the Pacific Coast when measured 
either by the number of nonindigenous species or by their abundance. 
Additionally, the common and widespread invaders in estuaries are either absent 
or in very low abundance on the shelf. The absence or low abundance of these 
estuarine invaders indicates that, at least to date, the offshore discharge of 
ballast water has not resulted in widespread invasion of the offshore benthic 
assemblages. 

3.5.6 Potential Linkage to Stressor Impacts 

Multi-metric benthic indices are often used as indicators of pollution- 
induced degradation of the benthos (see review by Diaz et al. 2004) and have 
been developed for a variety of estuarine applications (Engle et al. 1994, 
Weisberg et al. 1997, Van Dolah et al. 1999, Llannso et al. 2002a, 2002b). A 
desired feature of these indices is the ability to differentiate impaired vs. 
unimpaired benthic condition, based on a number of key biological attributes 
(e.g., numbers of species, diversity, abundance, relative proportions of sensitive 
vs. dominant species, biomass), while attempting to take into account variations 
associated with natural controlling factors. While a related index has been 
developed for the Southern California mainland shelf (Smith et al. 2001), there is 


107 


Table 3.5.6. Nonindigenous species from the shelf survey. “Comments and Qualifiers” documents some of the taxonomic 
uncertainties for the shelf nonindigenous species. Taxa Codes: AM = amphipod; B = bivalve; G = Gastropod; P = 
polychaete. 


if) 

CD 

"to 

Z3 

o 

o3 

_c/o 

c 

CD 

E 

E 

o 

O 


CD 

3 

0 

co 

>% 

co 


"D 

0 

C/0 

3 


■o 

0 

O 

3 

TO 

O 


C 

0 

i_ 

3 

O 

co 

i— 

0 


O 

O 

CM 


TO 

0 

i_ 

0 

■g 

CO 

c 

o 

o 

0 

JZ> 

TO 

3 

O 

£ 

CO 

c 

0 

E 

o 

0 

Q. 

CO 

GI¬ 

LD 


O = 

co 0 
co © 

o ^ 

^ 0 

. TO 
CO 0 

© 0) 

O jQ 

© i: 

Cl O 
CO £ 

©> ^ 

.E 0 

S E 


CO 

0 


0 

O 

5 

o 

0 


g 
c 
0 
DO O 
O c /3 
Q. .0 


O 

3 

DO 

0 * 


O 

0 

CL 

CO 

0 

0 


0 


0 

■b 0 

O CO 


0) 1- 
c 0 
O 5 
0 0 
_Q >“ 

£.8 

x 

2 © 
o 

i_ 

CL C 
_CO 0 

0 "co 

E l 


o 

o 

CM 

< 

Z 

I- 


E 

o 


c 

0 

CL 
LU 
Z TO 

i_ CD 
0 -Q 

<— 'i_ 

O 
CO 
0 
TO 


o 

°S 

CO 

c 

0 

E 


CNJ 

h- 

OO 


8lE 
CL 0 
CO JZ 

0 © 

£ 0 

o ll 

^ co 
0 5 
O 0 
c a 
0 0 
i-i 

o -Q 


0 

> 

0 

c 

co 

0 

TO 

0 

•0 

0 

0) 

0 

0 

DO 

0 

2 

0 

0 

£Z 

TO 

3 

O 


•0 

c 

0 

.CO 

o 

2 

CO 


m 

v_ 

0 

0 

$ 

0 

■4—' 

0 

0 

Q. 

E 

0 


0 

<i 

E 

o 

1 — 

> 

0 

■0 


■0 

0 

tr 

o 

CL 

0 

X 

_0 

CL 

E 

o 

CO fl 

0 o 
O o 

0 CNJ 
CL c 
© 0 
b E 

0 Cl 

0 

— jz 

< O 


0 
4=: 
0 0 

§ S 
.8 ^ 
Q -2 

C/D ^ 

0* § 

CD C 

8 k; 

co jz 

'81 


o 

o 

CM 


0 


■0 

0 

N 


0 E 

if) >z 

.E o 

a. >, 

LU w 


Z 

0 


E § 

£ I 
•0 ~ 
0 5 
■c 3 
o c 

CL 0 

0 o 

CO 

£ 8 

LI 2 


CO 

CD 

00 

0 

c 

o 

JD 

0 

Q. 

0 

0 

0 

E 

0 

CL 

0^ 


m 

0 

JZ 

o 

3 

JO _Q 

0 0 
,-t; -Q 
_Q O 

^ o. 

0 -0 

CL 0 

8 B 
•2 E 
0 
3 
CL 
O 
CL 


— C 


CO 

0 

o 

o 

c 

0 

CL 

o 

-0 

0 

> 

o 

in 

0 


— o 
0 o 

^ c 
in 0 

.11 


0 


0 


8.9. 

O - 
CL CO 
0 

o o 

4=1 0 


0 


Q. 

m 


O 

O 

CL 

E 

o 

c 

o 

X 

0 


■0 c 
c 0 

”1 

.x 

■6 -D 

0 

8-8 
^ 8 
b ci. 

£ 2 


c 

o 

o 

0 

-a 

oQ 

o 

to 

X 


CL 

0 

O 

X 

0 

JO 

0 

-0 

a 

0 

O 

-0 

o 

■o 

2 

o 

"0 

o 

.a 

Q 

o 

0 


in 

0 

■0 

0 

J4— 

in 

m 

_cp 

o 

in 

■0 

c 

0 

hi 

o 

o 

CM 

4= 

3 

OH 

■0 

c 


-'t 
o 
o 

0 CM 

0 "I 

0 © 
CD 0 
. 0 
© E 

0 in 

£ ^ 

0 if) 


m 

b 
0 
> 

m — 


in 

0 

o 

0 

CL 

m 

co 

'sz 


o jQ 

£ 8 

o O) 

i- CL 

° ^ 
E o 


c 

0 

0 

JZ 


E 

E 
o 


-o 

0 

tr 

o 

CL 

0 

i_ 

CO 

0 

"o 

0 

CL 

m 

c 

0 

0 

CL 

O 

13 

LU 

c 

0 

d: 

-c 

o 

c 

0 


c 

0 


0 


c 

o 

o 


•0 

0 

■0 

0 

0 

c 

0 

0 
1 — 
0 

0 


0 o 
CL o 
CM 

° ^ 

CL < 

2 ^ 

o ^ 

^ co 

9; c 

o E 

i'8 

CO 8" 

0 Q. 

CL LU 

E Z 

O M- 

o o 


w 

0 

0 

i— 

0 

0 

b 

JZ 

m 

4= 

O 


00 

g 

co 

0 

CL 

in 


if) 

Z 

0 

'c 

I— 

£ 

0 

o 

00 

c 

o 

E 

0 

■co 

3 

m 

3 v- 

c o 
3 O 
3 CM 


E ° 
2^ 


_co 

0 

E 


I- 


C - . 

0 >> 

o | 

8? 

2 S 

Q. ^ 
O © . 

0 i: . 

0 H— < 

■0 O ( 
JZ 0 < 
00 -0 

3 CO ■ 
O CL • 

£ c' 

0 0 

m © 
0 


CL C 
c CO 

o ^ 

ij 8 
£ 8 

-8 © 
^ o 

0 c 

0 o 

<S ~ 


>, 

DO 

a 

'c 

0 

00 

o 

-4—' 

CL 

o 

0 

0 

■0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

o 


0 

0 

o 

O 

g 

D- 

O 

0 

Q. 

if) 

=j 

C 

o 

l— 

0 

■0 

0 

> 

c 

0 

C 

0 

3 

-*—> 

in 

0 

c 

o 

E 

E 

o 

O 


0 

0 

o 

O 

g 

o 

0 

Ol 

if) 

Z) 

c 

o 

i _ 

0 

■0 

0 

> 

c 

0 

c 

l— 

0 

3 

0 

0 

C 

o 

E 

E 

o 

O 


c 

o 

’*—• 

o 

0 

s— 

03 

d 

o 

0 

X 


>% 

o 

c 

0 

3 

CT 

0 


CM 

CO 

CM 


LO 


h- 

CM 


CD 

CD 


ao 


o 

LD 


O 

LO 


CO 

CM 


CO 

CM 


CO 

O 


CO 


c 

0 

0 


0 

O 

c 

0 

■D 

C 

0 

_Q 

< 


LO 

o 

X)- 

CO 


o 

ao 

CM 


CM 

CM 

CO 


CD 

CD 


00 

LO 


"M" 

CM 


00 

O 


CO 

o 


h-. 

CM 

O 

CO 


CM 



T— 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 


0 0 
X ~o 
0 O 

I- O 


o 


If) 

0 

o 

0 

Q. 

if) 


is 

I 

o 

0 

,o 

c 

o 

0 

-J 


.0 

o 

5 

Oo 

CO 

$ 

£ 

o 

-Q 

o 

c 


m 

0 

0 

m 

c 

o 

m 

$ 

0 

O 

O 

■0 

O 

CL 


i2 0 

0 m 

© s 
"8 © 
o-^ 

o 1 

£ s 


.CO 

CO 

c: 

.0 

co 

5 

-Q 

m 

.0 

£ 

o 

§ 

UJ 


b 

-2 

"S 

0 

o 

■0 


b b 
o o 
cl .a 

Q 


0 

m 

0 

C 

0 

0 

m 

m 

0 

C 

0 


m 

1 

e 

0 

0 

0 

0 

.0 

-0 

CL 


m 

1 

,o 


<n 

0 

m 

0 

£ 

2 

0 

•+-». 

0 

I 


2 

I 

o 

t 

0 

0 

CO 

0. 


.0 

-0 

O 

0 

2 

rQ 

O 

0 

0 

Cl 


2 

.0 

-0 

I 

o 

o 

o 

0 

o 


^2 

0 

-Q 

O 

"0 

0 

0 

Cr 

2 

O 

bl 

O 

.cl 

Q 


108 




















currently no such index that has been developed for application in shelf waters 
throughout the entire West Coast. 

In the absence of a benthic index, we have attempted to assess potential 
stressor impacts in the present study by looking for obvious linkages between reduced 
values of key biological attributes (numbers of taxa, diversity, and abundance) and 
synoptically measured indicators of poor sediment or water quality. Benthic attributes in 
these offshore shelf waters showed significant variations among the three states. Thus, 
low values of species richness, H', and density were defined for the purpose of the 
present analysis as the lower 10 th percentile of values within each individual state. 
Thresholds for assessing poor sediment or water quality were defined as follows (sensu 
EPA 2000a for dissolved oxygen, EPA 2004 for other indicators): > 5 chemicals in 
excess of ERLs (from Long et al. 1995), > 1 chemical in excess of ERMs (from Long et 
al. 1995), TOC > 5%, and DO in near-bottom water < 2.3 mg/L. Appendix Table 4 
provides a summary by station of each of these variables and flags those falling within 
the defined levels of concern. 

This analysis revealed no major evidence of impaired benthic condition linked to 
measured stressors. There were only two stations, both in California, where low values 
of any of the three benthic attributes co-occurred with high sediment contamination or 
low DO in bottom water. One station (CA03-4039 off Los Angeles) had low benthic 
species richness and abundance accompanied by high sediment contamination, with 
eight chemicals in excess of corresponding ERL values and two in excess of ERM 
values. The other station (CA03-0059 north of San Francisco Bay) had low species 
richness and diversity accompanied by low DO. There were five other stations with DO 
in bottom water < 2.3 mg/L; however, none of these had low values of the three benthic 
variables. There were two stations (CA03-4030, CA03-4417) that had TOC levels in a 
range (> 5%) potentially harmful to benthic fauna. A third station (CA03-4430) showed 
a potential concern level if the more conservative threshold of 3.6% TOC is used 
(Hyland et al. 2005), but low values of benthic community attributes were not observed 
at any of these sites. High sediment contamination was a more prevalent stressor, 
occurring at 23 stations (all in California), but not at any of the sites where low values of 
benthic attributes were observed. In fact, most of these latter stations with high 
sediment contamination had more than 100 species grab' 1 . 

Such lack of concordance suggests that these offshore waters are currently in 
good condition, with the lower-end values of the various biological attributes 
representing parts of a normal reference range controlled by natural factors. Multiple 
linear regression was performed using full model procedures to test for the significance 
and direction of relationships between each of the benthic variables and various abiotic 
environmental factors (latitude, depth, percent fines). Data transformations were made 
where needed (i.e., square root for richness, logio for abundance) to meet analysis 
assumptions including normality and homoscedasticity of residuals. Results (graphics 
not shown) suggested that latitude and depth had significant influences on benthic 
variables region-wide. All three benthic variables showed significant inverse 


109 


relationships with latitude, i.e. with values increasing as latitude decreased (p < 0.01). 
Depth had a significant direct influence on diversity (p < 0.001) and a significant inverse 
effect on density (p < 0.01). None of the three benthic variables varied significantly in 
relation to % fines (at p < 0.1), though in general there was a tendency for muddier 
sediments (higher percent fines) to have lower species richness and diversity and 
higher densities than coarser sediments. 

Alternatively, it is possible that for some of these sites the lower values of benthic 
variables reflect symptoms of disturbance induced by other unmeasured stressors. In 
efforts to be consistent with the underlying concepts and protocols of earlier EMAP and 
NCA programs, the indicators in this study included measures of stressors, such as 
chemical contaminants and symptoms of eutrophication, which are often associated 
with adverse biological impacts in shallower estuarine and inland ecosystems. 

However, there may be other sources of human-induced stress in these offshore 
systems that pose greater risks to living resources and which have not been adequately 
captured. One such activity is commercial trawling, which is a major industry in shelf 
waters, including NMSs, and which could have significant adverse effects on bottom 
habitats and benthic organisms (Jones 1992, Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Dayton et al. 
1995, National Research Council 2002, Watling and Norse 1998). Future monitoring 
efforts in these offshore areas should include indicators of such alternative sources of 
disturbance. 


110 


4.0 Literature Cited 


Allen, M.J., T. Mikel, D. Cadien, J.E. Kalman, E.T. Jarvis, K.C. Schiff, D.W. Diehl, S.L. 
Moore, S. Walther, G. Deets, C. Cash, S. Watts, D.J. Pondella II, V. Raco- 
Rands, C. Thomas, R. Gartman, L. Sabin, W. Power, A.K. Groce, and J.L. 
Armstrong. 2007. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program: 
IV. Demersal Fishes and Megabenthic Invertebrates. Southern California Coastal 
Water Research Project. Costa Mesa, CA. 

Baber, K.D., F.B. Fulkerson and N.S. Peterson. 1959. pp. 765-778. Oregon. In: Bureau 
of Mines/Minerals Yearbook Area Reports, 1958. 

Baxter, R. 1987. Mollusks of Alaska: A listing of all mollusks, freshwater, terrestrial, and 
marine reported for the state of Alaska, with locations of the species types, 
maximum sizes, and marine depths inhabited. Shells and Sea Life. Bayside, 
California. 163 p. 

Bay, S.M., T. Mikel, K. Schiff, S. Mathison, B. Hester, D. Young, and D. Greenstein. 

2005. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program: I. Sediment 
Toxicity. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA. 

Bernard, F. 1967. Prodrome fora distributional check-list and bibliography of the recent 
marine mollusca of the west coast of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of 
Canada. Technical Report No. 2. 261 p. 

Blake, J.A. and R.E. Ruff. 2007. Polychaeta. pp. 309-410, In: Carlton, J.T. (ed.) In: The 
Light and Smith Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates from Central California to 
Oregon, Fourth Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 
California. 

Carlton, J.T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653- 
1655. 

Carlton, J.T. 2007. (ed.) The Light and Smith Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates from 
Central California to Oregon, Fourth Edition. University of California Press, 
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 

Chan, F. , J. A. Barth, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W. T. Peterson, B. A. 
Menge. 2008. Emergence of anoxia in the California Current Large Marine 
Ecosystem. Science 319:920. 

Chapman, J.W. 2007. Gammaridea. pp. 545-618, In: Carlton, J.T. (ed.), The Light and 
Smith Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates from Central California to Oregon, Fourth 
Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 

Cohen, A. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States 
estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and 
Delta. Report for the National Sea Grant College Program, DT and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Report No. PB 96-166525. 

Cooksey, C. L. 2003. Cruise Report, NOAA Ship McARTHUR II Cruise AR-03-01-NC 
(June 1 - 26, 2003). EMAP Summer 03 Survey of Ecological Conditions of the 
Western U.S. Continental Shelf. Internal Report. NOAA, NOS, National Centers 
for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and 
Biomolecular Research, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina, 
29412. 


Ill 


Dayton, P.K., S.F. Thrush, M.T. Agardy, and R.J. Hofman. 1995. Environmental effects 
of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 5: 
205-232. 

Diaz, R.J., M. Solan, and R.M. Valente. 2004. A review of approaches for classifying 
benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality. Journal of Environmental 
Management 73:165-181. 

Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics Methods 
Manual. EPA/620/R-96/002. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and 
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. 

Engle, V. D., J. K. Summers, and G.R. Gaston. 1994. A benthic index of environmental 
condition of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 17: 372-384. 

Fauchald, K. and G.F. Jones. 1978. Variation in community structure of shelf, slope and 
basin macrofaunal communities of the Southern California Bight. Chapter 19, 
Year II benthic study. Report submitted by Science Applications, Inc. to Bureau 
of Land Management, Pacific OCS Office, Los Angeles, CA under Contract No. 
AA551-CT6-40. 

Geider, R. J. and J. La Roche. 2002. Redfield revisited: variability of C:N:P in marine 
microalgae and its biochemical basis. European Journal of Phycology 37:1-17. 

Grantham, B.A., F. Chan, K.J. Nielsen, D.S. Fox, J.A. Barth, A. Huyer, J. Lubchenco, 
and B. A. Menge. 2004. Upwelling-driven nearshore hypoxia signals ecosystem 
and oceanographic changes in the northeast Pacific. Nature 429:749-754. 

Hayslip, G., L. Edmond, V. Partridge, W. Nelson, H. Lee, F. Cole, J. Lamberson , and L. 
Caton. 2006. Ecological Condition of the Estuaries of Oregon and Washington. 
EPA 910-R-06-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Environmental Assessment, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. 

Hines, A.H., and G.M. Ruiz. 2000. Biological invasions of cold-water coastal 

ecosystems: Ballast-mediated introductions in Port Valdez/Prince William Sound, 
Alaska. Prince William Sound Regional Advisory Board, Valdez, AK. Available 
online at http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0018502.pdf. 

Hoberg, M. and H. Feder. 2002. The macrobenthos of sites within Prince William 
Sound, Alaska, prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. International Review of 
Hydrobiology 87:25-45. 

Hyland, J. L., T.J. Herrlinger, T.R. Snoots, A.H. Ringwood, R.F. Van Dolah, C.T. 

Hackney, G.A. Nelson, J.S. Rosen, and S.A. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental 
Quality of Estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. Annual Statistical Summary 
for the 1994 EMAP- Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province. 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97. NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean 
Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD. 102 p. 

Hyland, J., E. Baptiste, J. Campbell, J. Kennedy, R. Kropp, and S. Williams. 1991. 
Macroinfaunal communities of the Santa Maria Basin on the California outer 
continental shelf and slope. Marine Ecology Progress Series 78:147-161. 

Hyland, J., L. Balthis, I. Karakassis, P. Magni, A. Petrov, J. Shine, O. Vestergaard, and 
R. Warwick. 2005. Organic carbon content of sediments as an indicator of stress 
in the marine benthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295:91-103. 


112 


Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. 
Advances in Marine Biology 34:201-352. 

Jones, G.F. 1969. The benthic macrofauna of the mainland shelf of southern California. 
Allan Hancock Monographs in Marine Biology 4: 1-219. 

Jones, J.B. 1992. Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review. New 
Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26:59-67. 

Krauskopf, K.B. and D.K. Bird. 1995. Introduction to Geochemistry. 3 rd edition. Appendix 
IV, Average Abundance of Elements in the Earth’s Crust, Continental Crust, in 
Three Common Rocks, and in Seawater. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Lauenstein, G.G. and A.Y. Cantillo (eds.). 1993. Sampling and analytical methods of the 
National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel 
Watch Projects 1984-1992: Comprehensive descriptions of trace organic 
analytical methods, Volume IV NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71, 
Silver Spring, MD. 182 pp. 

Lauenstein, G.G., E.A. Crecelius, and A.Y. Cantillo. 2000. Baseline metal 

concentrations of the U.S. West Coast and their use in evaluating sediment 
contamination. Presented at 21st Ann. Soc. Environ. Toxicology and Chemistry 
meeting, November 12 - 15, 2000, Nashville Tennessee. 

Lee II, H. and D.A. Reusser. with contributions from M.Ranelletti, R. Nehmer, K. Welch, 
and L. Hillmann. 2008. Pacific Coast Ecosystem Information System (PCEIS) V. 
2.0. U.S. EPA and USGS (Microsoft Access 2003 database). 

Lee II, H., B. Thompson, and S. Lowe. 2003. Estuarine and scalar patterns of invasion 
in the soft-bottom benthic communities of the San Francisco Estuary. Biological 
Invasions 5:85-102. 

Lee II, H., W.G. Nelson, J.O. Lamberson, and D.A. Reusser. 2003. Regional 

assessment of the invasive macrobenthos in the small West Coast estuaries, p. 
81 In: Third International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, Abstract Book. La 
Jolla, California, March 16-19. 134 p. 

Levin, P.S., M.J. Fogarty, G.C. Matlock, and M. Ernst. 2008. Integrated ecosystem 
assessments. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- 
NWFSC-92, 20 pp. 

Lima, F.P., P.A. Ribeiro, N. Queiroz, S.J. Hawkins, and A.M. Santos. 2007. Do 

distributional shifts of northern and southern species of algae match the warming 
pattern? Global Change Biology 13:2592-2604. 

Llanso, R.J., L.C. Scott, D.M. Dauer, J.L. Hyland, and D.E. Russell. 2002a. An estuarine 
benthic index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. I. 
Classification of assemblages and habitat definition. Estuaries 25:1219-1230. 

Llanso, R.J., L.C. Scott, J.L. Hyland, D.M. Dauer, D.E. Russell, and F.W. Kutz. 2002. An 
estuarine benthic index of biological integrity for the Mid Atlantic region of the 
United States. II. Index development. Estuaries 25:1231-1242. 

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Callander. 1995. Incidence of 

adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and 
estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19:81-97. 

Long, E.R., J. Hameedi, A. Robertson, M. Dutch, S. Aasen, K. Welch, S. Magoon, R. 
Carr, T. Johnson, J. Biedenbach, K. Scott, C. Mueller, and J. Anderson. 2000. 


113 


Sediment Quality in Puget Sound. Year 2 - Central Puget Sound. National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, 
MD. NOS NCCOS COMA Technical Memo No. 147. Washington State 
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, Publication No. 00-03-055. 353 p. 
Macpherson, E. 1971. The Marine Molluscs of Arctic Canada. National Museum of 
Natural Sciences. Publications in Biological Oceanography No. 3. 149 p. 

Marine Ecosystems and Management. 2007. Experts describe challenges facing marine 
EBM (multiple related short papers included). Marine Ecosystems Management 
1 : 1 - 8 . 

Murawski, S.A. 2007. Ten myths concerning ecosystem approaches to marine resource 
management. Marine Pollution 31:681-690. 

Murawski, S. and E. Menashes. 2007. What is an integrated ecosystem assessment? 
Presentation at March 27-28, 2007 meeting on “An Integrated, Ecosystem-based 
Approach to Regional Ocean Management: Creating a Policy-Relevant Science 
Vision for Ecosystem-based Management in the Gulf of Maine,” University of 
New Hampshire. 

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/ebm/meeting2007/presentations/noaa_murawski_file 

s/noaa_murawski.ppt. 

National Research Council. 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat. 

National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 126 p. 

Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson, V. Engle, L. Harwell and L.M. Smith. 2004. 

Condition of Estuaries of Western United States for 1999: A Statistical Summary. 
Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects 
Research Laboratory, EPA/620/R-04/200. 132 p. 

Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, and J.O. Lamberson. 2005. Ecological Condition of the 

Estuaries of California for 1999: A Statistical Summary. Office of Research and 
Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. 
EPA/620/R-05/004. 128 p. 

Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson, F.A. Cole, C. Weilhoefer, and P.J. Clinton. 

2007a. The Condition of Tidal Wetlands of Washington, Oregon, and California - 
2002. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental 
Effects Research Laboratory. 84 p. 

Nelson, W.G., R. Brock, H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson and F. Cole. 2007b. Condition of 

Estuaries and Bays of Hawaii for 2002: A Statistical Summary. Technical Report. 
Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects 
Research Laboratory, EPA/620-R-07/001. 134 p. 

Nezlin, N.P., P.M. DiGiacomo, S.B. Weisberg, D.W. Diehl, J.A. Warrick, J. Mengel, B.H. 
Jones, K.M. Reifel, S.C. Johnson, J.C. Ohlmann, L. Washburn, and E.J. Terrill. 
2007. Southern California Bight 2003 Monitoring Program: V. Water Quality. 
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. 

NMSP (National Marine Sanctuaries Program). 2004. A monitoring framework for the 
National Marine Sanctuary System. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National 
Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 22p. 


114 


NOAA 2007. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. White paper, November 2007. NOAA 
IEA Priority Area Task Team. http://www- 
ocean.tamu.edu/GCOOS/Office/documents/Nov2007/04b.pdf. 7 p. 

Partridge, V. 2007. Condition of coastal waters of Washington State, 2000-2003. A 
statistical summary. Publication No. 07-03-051. Environmental Assessment 
Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 251 p. 

Ranasinghe, J.A., A.M. Barnett, K. Schiff, D.E. Montagne, C. Brantley, C. Beegan, D.B. 
Cadien, C. Cash, G.B. Deets, D.R. Diener, T.K. Mikel, R.W. Smith, R.G. Velarde, 
S.D. Watts, and S.B. Weisberg. 2007. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional 
Monitoring Program: III. Benthic Macrofauna. Southern California Coastal Water 
Research Project. Costa Mesa, CA. 

Raymond, L.J. and N.V.C. Ralston. 2004. Mercury: selenium interactions and health 
implications. Seychelles Medical and Dental Journal, Special Issue, 7:72-77. 
Available at: http://www.seychelles.net/smdj/SECIIIC.pdf 

SAS Institute Inc. 2004. SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc. 

Saupe, S.M., J. Gendron, and D. Dasher. 2005. The Condition of Southcentral Alaska 
Coastal Bays and Estuaries. A Statistical Summary for the National Coastal 
Assessment Program. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 

SCAMIT, 2001. A taxonomic listing of soft bottom macro- and megainvertebrates from 
infaunal & epibenthic monitoring programs in the Southern California Bight. 
Edition 4. Prepared by Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate 
Taxonomists, San Pedro, California. Available at 
http://www.scamit.org/edition_four_information.htm. 

Schiff, K. 2000. Sediment chemistry on the mainland shelf of the Southern California 
Bight. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40:267-276. 

Schiff, K., K. Maruya and K. Christensen. 2006. Southern California Bight 2003 
Regional Monitoring Program: II. Sediment Chemistry. Southern California 
Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA. 

Smith, R.W., M. Bergen, S.B. Weisberg, D. Cadien, A. Dalkey, D. Montagne, J.K. Stull, 
and R.G. Velarde. 2001. Benthic response index for assessing infaunal 
communities on the southern California mainland shelf. Ecological Applications 
11:1073-1087. 

Spalding, M.D. H.E. Fox, G.R. Allen, N. Davidson, Z. A. Ferdana, M. Finlayson, B.S. 
Flalpern, M. A. Jorge, A. Lombana, S.A. Lourie, K.D. Martin, E. Mcmanus, J. 
Molnar, C.A. Recchia, and J. Robertson. 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: A 
bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57:573-583. 

Strobel, C. J., H. W. Buffum, S.J. Benyi, E.A. Petrocelli, D.R. Reifsteck, and D.J. Keith. 
1995. Statistical summary: EMAP - Estuaries Virginian Province - 1990 to 1993. 
U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, 
Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, R.l. EPA/620/R-94/026. 72 p. plus 
Appendices A-C. 

Summers, J.K., J.M. Macauley, P.T. Heitmuller, V.D. Engle, A.M. Adams, and G.T. 
Brooks. 1993. Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian 
Province -1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 


115 


Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/R- 
93/001. 101 p. plus Appendices A-C. 

Sytsma M., J. Cordell, J. Chapman, R.C. Draheim. 2004. Lower Columbia River Aquatic 
Nonindigenous Species Survey 2001-2004 Final Technical Report: (Appendices). 
Prepared for the United States Coast Guard and United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service. 164 p. 

T N & Associates, Inc. 2001. Compiling Lists of Nonindigenous Species (NIS) from the 
West Coast of the Unites States, Excluding San Francisco Bay. Report on EMAP 
1999 species submitted to National Center for Environmental 
Assessment/ORD/EPA, Washington, D.C. 81 pages and spreadsheet, (available 
from PCEB/EPA). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): 

Laboratory Methods Manual - Estuaries, Volume 1: Biological and Physical 
Analyses. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and 
Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-91/024. 321-324. 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. Ambient Aquatic Life Water 
Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. 
EPA-822-R-00-012. Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, 
Washington, DC. 49p. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/dissolved/docriteria.pdf 
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Guidance for Assessing 
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk 
Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. EPA-823-B-00-008. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 383 p. 
Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/qa/qadevtools/mod4references/supplemental/vol 

ume2.pdf 

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. National Coastal Condition 
Report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research and Development and Office of 
Water, Washington, DC. 204 p. Available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html 
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. National Coastal Condition 
Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 286 p. 
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nccr/2005/downloads.html 
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. National Estuary Program 
Coastal Condition Report. EPA-842/B-06/001. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 445 p. Available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nepccr/index.html 
U.S. EPA/WED Unpublished Data. EPA National Coastal Assessment Western 
Regional Component (NCA-West) 1999-2000 database for estuaries. EPA 
Western Ecology Division (EPA/WED), National Health and Environmental 
Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, 
OR 32561. 


116 


Van Dolah, R. F., J. L. Hyland, A. F. Holland, J. S. Rosen, and T. R. Snoots. 1999. A 
benthic index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of 
the southeastern USA. Marine Environmental Research 48: 269-283. 

Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. 
Frithsen. 1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for 
Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20:149-158. 

Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A 
comparison with forest clear-cutting. Conservation Biolology 12: 1180-1197. 

Wilson, S. and V. Partridge. 2007. Condition of Outer Coastal Estuaries of Washington 
State, 1999. A Statistical Summary. Publication No. 07-03-012. Washington 
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 249 p. 


117 


5.0 Appendix Tables 


Appendix Table 1. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment. 
The “Frame km 2 ” represents the total area within a multi-density category. The 
weighting factor for computing CDFs is obtained by dividing the multi-density 
category area by the number of samples for a given parameter obtained in that 
category (see section 2.6). 


EMAP 
Station ID 

Sample 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

Multi-density 

Category 

Frame 

km 2 

CA03-0001 

106 

10/16/2003 

33.362 

-118.307 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0007 

70 

6/25/2003 

38.158 

-123.056 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0008 

64.3 

6/24/2003 

37.248 

-122.495 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0012 

40 

6/26/2003 

37.651 

-122.711 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0019 

110 

6/18/2003 

39.990 

-124.158 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0024 

68 

6/25/2003 

37.598 

-122.827 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0027 

84 

6/19/2003 

38.444 

-123.258 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0028 

94 

6/25/2003 

37.946 

-123.145 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0032 

56 

6/22/2003 

34.908 

-120.737 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0035 

81 

6/18/2003 

39.510 

-123.840 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0039 

90 

6/19/2003 

38.311 

-123.206 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0040 

93 

6/20/2003 

37.373 

-122.753 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0043 

78 

6/14/2003 

40.728 

-124.445 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0044 

61 

6/25/2003 

37.943 

-123.028 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0048 

62 

6/22/2003 

34.590 

-120.719 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0051 

63 

6/14/2003 

41.636 

-124.319 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0052 

104 

6/25/2003 

37.908 

-123.310 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0056 

95 

6/21/2003 

37.524 

-122.874 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0059 

103 

6/19/2003 

38.465 

-123.350 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0060 

80 

6/24/2003 

36.823 

-121.903 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0064 

50 

6/22/2003 

35.783 

-121.375 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0071 

75 

6/25/2003 

38.303 

-123.124 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0072 

89 

6/20/2003 

37.317 

-122.628 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0075 

69 

6/15/2003 

40.515 

-124.521 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0076 

54 

6/25/2003 

37.749 

-122.877 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0083 

32.7 

6/14/2003 

41.442 

-124.149 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0088 

46 

6/24/2003 

37.611 

-122.714 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0091 

115 

6/19/2003 

38.765 

-123.702 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0092 

89 

6/20/2003 

36.924 

-122.236 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0096 

55 

6/22/2003 

35.042 

-120.740 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0099 

65 

6/18/2003 

39.621 

-123.828 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0104 

61.5 

6/24/2003 

37.444 

-122.598 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0112 

61 

6/22/2003 

34.725 

-120.730 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0116 

89 

6/21/2003 

37.623 

-122.933 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0123 

40.4 

6/25/2003 

37.927 

-122.836 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0124 

104 

6/20/2003 

37.128 

-122.577 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0128 

85 

6/22/2003 

35.933 

-121.516 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0135 

94 

6/25/2003 

38.128 

-123.180 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0136 

112 

6/20/2003 

36.980 

-122.347 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 


118 




EMAP 

Sample 




Multi-density 

Frame 

Station ID 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

Category 

km 2 

CA03-0139 

75 

6/14/2003 

41.974 

-124.405 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0140 

49.6 

6/25/2003 

37.853 

-122.825 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0147 

123 

6/14/2003 

41.184 

-124.319 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-0157 

85 

6/25/2003 

37.980 

-123.133 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0158 

53 

6/24/2003 

37.194 

-122.457 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0194 

69 

6/21/2003 

37.777 

-123.010 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0210 

102 

6/24/2003 

36.748 

-121.939 

CA-NMS 

5863.69 

CA03-0289 

102 

6/14/2003 

41.058 

-124.301 

CA-Other 

6311.78 

CA03-4001 

34 

7/21/2003 

32.550 

-117.200 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4007 

60 

7/21/2003 

33.860 

-118.448 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4013 

73 

7/22/2003 

32.695 

-117.302 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4016 

87 

7/24/2003 

34.334 

-119.742 

SPME-N 

949.7 

CA03-4020 

83 

8/18/2003 

34.231 

-119.512 

SPME-N 

949.7 

CA03-4022 

' 35 

7/21/2003 

33.928 

-118.483 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4027 

43 

8/19/2003 

33.621 

-118.195 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4028 

101 

8/15/2003 

34.116 

-119.936 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4030 

75 

7/21/2003 

34.034 

-119.351 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4031 

42 

7/24/2003 

33.512 

-117.771 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4036 

71 

8/18/2003 

34.284 

-119.507 

SPME-N 

949.7 

CA03-4037 

48 

7/23/2003 

32.796 

-117.305 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4038 

59 

7/23/2003 

33.998 

-118.709 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4039 

131 

8/20/2003 

33.767 

-118.460 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4041 

56 

8/6/2003 

33.153 

-117.387 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4042 

70 

7/29/2003 

33.568 

-117.990 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4043 

28 

8/19/2003 

33.695 

-118.296 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4046 

57 

7/22/2003 

33.935 

-118.539 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4049 

72 

8/5/2003 

33.088 

-117.351 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4052 

92 

7/21/2003 

34.076 

-119.748 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4071 

72 

8/20/2003 

33.759 

-118.446 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4074 

38 

7/29/2003 

33.598 

-118.046 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4078 

57 

7/22/2003 

33.922 

-118.519 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4080 

36.5 

7/25/2003 

34.384 

-119.596 

SPME-N 

949.7 

CA03-4081 

63 

8/7/2003 

33.266 

-117.534 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4087 

93 

7/21/2003 

33.835 

-118.470 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4090 

80 

7/21/2003 

33.848 

-118.568 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4096 

79 

8/7/2003 

33.270 

-117.565 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4099 

72 

8/18/2003 

34.307 

-119.558 

SPME-N 

949.7 

CA03-4101 

38 

7/23/2003 

33.998 

-118.559 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4102 

42 

8/20/2003 

33.721 

-118.365 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4109 

42 

7/22/2003 

33.959 

-118.520 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4113 

41 

7/29/2003 

33.590 

-117.971 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4115 

92 

7/21/2003 

34.078 

-119.701 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4120 

86 

7/22/2003 

32.658 

-117.309 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4122 

48 

8/19/2003 

33.604 

-118.140 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4123 

56.5 

7/30/2003 

34.454 

-120.198 

SPME-N 

949.7 

CA03-4126 

50 

9/3/2003 

33.354 

-117.619 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4134 

78 

8/21/2003 

33.820 

-118.427 

SPME-C 

385.46 


119 




EMAP 
Station ID 

Sample 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

Multi-density 

Category 

Frame 

km 2 

CA03-4137 

57 

7/29/2003 

33.577 

-118.012 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4150 

60 

7/21/2003 

33.877 

-118.470 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4152 

98 

8/5/2003 

33.115 

-117.357 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4154 

34 

7/23/2003 

33.625 

-118.075 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4155 

101 

8/15/2003 

34.102 

-120.142 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4159 

71 

8/21/2003 

33.994 

-120.337 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4163 

134 

7/21/2003 

34.078 

-119.510 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4164 

100 

7/25/2003 

32.730 

-117.345 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4165 

34 

7/23/2003 

34.014 

-118.592 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4166 

67 

8/20/20,03 

33.708 

-118.357 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4171 

78 

7/22/2003 

33.856 

-120.002 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4172 

45 

7/21/2003 

32.595 

-117.245 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4173 

121 

7/22/2003 

33.908 

-118.567 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4183 

35.1 

7/29/2003 

34.400 

-119.830 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4184 

92 

7/25/2003 

32.688 

-117.324 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4185 

48 

7/31/2003 

33.992 

-118.798 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4186 

111 

8/19/2003 

33.567 

-118.191 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4197 

65 

8/21/2003 

33.790 

-118.456 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4199 

56 

8/6/2003 

33.159 

-117.398 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4204 

65 

7/22/2003 

33.928 

-118.543 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4215 

50 

8/19/2003 

33.607 

-118.125 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4219 

41.5 

9/3/2003 

33.428 

-117.690 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4226 

56 

7/21/2003 

33.898 

-118.501 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4227 

74 

8/5/2003 

33.107 

-117.357 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4229 

34 

8/18/2003 

33.672 

-118.265 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4230 

56 

7/22/2003 

33.887 

-120.010 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4236 

32 

7/29/2003 

33.603 

-118.036 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4238 

82 

7/22/2003 

33.966 

-119.605 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4239 

57 

7/22/2003 

32.682 

-117.282 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4243 

58 

7/22/2003 

32.679 

-117.282 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4245 

84 

8/19/2003 

33.577 

-118.210 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4251 

40 

7/21/2003 

32.590 

-117.228 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4255 

125 

7/22/2003 

32.659 

-117.336 

SPME-S 

488.75 

CA03-4260 

40 

7/29/2003 

33.592 

-118.027 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4270 

52 

7/21/2003 

33.910 

-118.499 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4271 

64 

7/22/2003 

33.878 

-118.545 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4273 

40 

8/5/2003 

33.115 

-117.348 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4274 

33 

8/20/2003 

33.636 

-118.198 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4278 

41 

7/24/2003 

33.503 

-117.765 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4288 

48 

8/6/2003 

33.152 

-117.383 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4291 

82 

7/22/2003 

33.874 

-119.948 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4293 

62 

7/22/2003 

33.897 

-118.540 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4302 

119 

7/25/2003 

32.691 

-117.336 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4303 

46 

8/20/2003 

33.606 

-118.190 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4313 

41 

8/20/2003 

33.743 

-118.424 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4315 

28 

8/6/2003 

33.162 

-117.386 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4317 

63 

8/18/2003 

33.617 

-118.260 

SPME-C 

385.46 


120 




EMAP 

Sample 




Multi-density 

Frame 

Station ID 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

Category 

km 2 

CA03-4324 

64 

7/22/2003 

33.953 

-119.687 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4329 

64 

8/19/2003 

33.602 

-118.117 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4330 

110 

8/15/2003 

34.113 

-120.025 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4333 

37.6 

9/3/2003 

33.428 

-117.686 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4334 

51 

8/21/2003 

34.071 

-120.328 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4339 

51 

7/22/2003 

33.881 

-118.535 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4343 

51 

8/20/2003 

33.637 

-118.248 

SPME-C 

385.46 

CA03-4346 

48 

7/23/2003 

33.960 

-118.529 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4350 

56 

7/29/2003 

33.575 

-117.985 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4352 

78 

7/21/2003 

34.054 

-119.528 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4357 

92 

7/22/2003 

32.680 

-117.324 

Large POTW Outfalls 

163.22 

CA03-4365 

41.5 

8/4/2003 

32.999 

-117.301 

Small POTW Outfalls 

25.81 

CA03-4377 

46 

7/22/2003 

33.890 

-120.082 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4380 

95 

8/21/2003 

33.988 

-120.380 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4389 

100 

8/19/2003 

33.450 

-119.053 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4390 

52 

8/21/2003 

33.950 

-120.237 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4396 

99 

8/18/2003 

34.097 

-120.123 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4411 

84 

8/22/2003 

34.046 

-119.439 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4417 

119 

8/19/2003 

33.827 

-120.076 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4425 

100 

8/22/2003 

34.108 

-120.205 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4427 

85 

8/23/2003 

34.047 

-119.655 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4430 

83 

8/28/2003 

34.057 

-119.475 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4435 

63 

8/27/2003 

33.976 

-119.881 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

CA03-4444 

100 

8/28/2003 

33.963 

-119.586 

Channel Islands NMS 

2160.8 

OR03-0001 

50 

6/13/2003 

42.503 

-124.539 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0002 

108 

6/6/2003 

45.959 

-124.244 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0003 

102 

6/11/2003 

44.193 

-124.485 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0004 

101 

6/10/2003 

44.819 

-124.237 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0005 

47 

6/14/2003 

42.010 

-124.354 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0006 

54 

6/12/2003 

44.014 

-124.212 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0007 

119 

6/11/2003 

43.787 

-124.437 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0008 

82 

6/6/2003 

45.658 

-124.112 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0009 

70 

6/10/2003 

44.590 

-124.253 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0010 

91 

6/11/2003 

44.034 

-124.812 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0011 

64 

6/13/2003 

42.119 

-124.400 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0012 

100 

6/12/2003 

43.525 

-124.364 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0013 

84 

6/6/2003 

46.123 

-124.214 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0014 

64 

6/10/2003 

44.460 

-124.351 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0015 

77 

6/9/2003 

45.044 

-124.104 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0016 

112 

6/8/2003 

45.421 

-124.154 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0017 

80 

6/9/2003 

45.270 

-124.088 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0018 

123 

6/10/2003 

44.639 

-124.513 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0019 

93 

6/10/2003 

44.294 

-124.517 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0020 

76 

6/13/2003 

42.302 

-124.477 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0021 

120 

6/6/2003 

46.003 

-124.304 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0022 

76 

6/12/2003 

43.164 

-124.540 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0023 

92 

6/13/2003 

42.496 

-124.620 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 


121 




EMAP 
Station ID 

Sample 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

Multi-density 

Category 

Frame 

km 2 

OR03-0024 

110 

6/6/2003 

46.118 

-124.351 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0025 

57 

6/10/2003 

44.471 

-124.212 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0026 

93 

6/9/2003 

44.922 

-124.165 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0027 

102 

6/12/2003 

43.935 

-124.310 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0028 

79 

6/12/2003 

43.754 

-124.252 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0029 

52 

6/6/2003 

45.622 

-124.011 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0030 

64 

6/10/2003 

44.686 

-124.185 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0031 

74.7 

6/11/2003 

44.296 

-124.307 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0032 

54 

6/13/2003 

42.078 

-124.376 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0033 

107 

6/12/2003 

43.598 

-124.381 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0034 

116 

6/6/2003 

46.190 

-124.389 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0035 

118 

6/10/2003 

44.402 

-124.449 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0036 

115 

6/11/2003 

44.189 

-124.676 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0037 

106 

6/6/2003 

45.591 

-124.161 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0038 

76 

6/9/2003 

45.138 

-124.090 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0039 

73 

6/11/2003 

44.080 

-124.257 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0040 

112 

6/11/2003 

44.095 

-124.426 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0041 

92 

6/13/2003 

42.622 

-124.567 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0042 

88 

6/6/2003 

46.030 

-124.192 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0043 

106 

6/12/2003 

43.436 

-124.466 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0044 

100 

6/13/2003 

42.489 

-124.652 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0045 

81 

6/6/2003 

46.164 

-124.228 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0046 

57 

6/11/2003 

44.224 

-124.215 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0047 

64 

6/10/2003 

44.782 

-124.191 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0048 

95 

6/12/2003 

43.885 

-124.279 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0049 

69 

6/12/2003 

43.624 

-124.266 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

OR03-0050 

54 

6/6/2003 

45.655 

-124.024 

OR-ALL 

7994.69 

WA03-0001 

28 

6/2/2003 

47.823 

-124.645 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0002 

75 

6/4/2003 

46.977 

-124.509 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0003 

60 

6/3/2003 

47.554 

-124.642 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0004 

88 

6/5/2003 

46.665 

-124.428 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0005 

46 

6/3/2003 

47.313 

-124.494 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0006 

60 

6/2/2003 

48.039 

-124.883 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0007 

54 

6/4/2003 

47.128 

-124.441 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0008 

116 

6/3/2003 

47.325 

-124.717 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0009 

104 

6/4/2003 

47.086 

-124.702 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0010 

61 

6/5/2003 

46.285 

-124.244 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0011 

30.6 

6/2/2003 

48.073 

-124.797 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0012 

91 

6/2/2003 

47.909 

-124.908 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0013 

55 

6/3/2003 

47.246 

-124.505 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0014 

32 

6/2/2003 

48.297 

-124.766 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0015 

64 

6/5/2003 

46.426 

-124.293 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0017 

30 

6/3/2003 

47.623 

-124.543 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0018 

57 

6/5/2003 

46.549 

-124.267 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0019 

52 

6/3/2003 

47.354 

-124.533 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0020 

60 

6/4/2003 

46.782 

-124.344 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0021 

91 

6/3/2003 

47.737 

-124.828 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 


122 




EMAP 
Station ID 

Sample 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

Multi-density 

Category 

Frame 

km 2 

WA03-0022 

65 

6/2/2003 

47.780 

-124.753 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0023 

100 

6/5/2003 

46.814 

-124.551 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0024 

31 

6/2/2003 

48.253 

-124.815 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0025 

39 

6/4/2003 

46.844 

-124.242 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0026 

110 

6/3/2003 

47.458 

-124.754 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0027 

54 

6/2/2003 

47.717 

-124.685 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0029 

44 

6/3/2003 

47.457 

-124.558 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0030 

107 

6/4/2003 

46.948 

-124.641 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0031 

54 

6/5/2003 

46.528 

-124.263 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0032 

118 

6/3/2003 

47.665 

-124.907 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0033 

106 

6/2/2003 

47.899 

-124.965 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0034 

89 

6/4/2003 

47.127 

-124.645 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0035 

103 

6/4/2003 

47.161 

-124.693 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0037 

98 

6/5/2003 

46.418 

-124.409 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0038 

47.3 

6/2/2003 

48.030 

-124.843 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0039 

82 

6/3/2003 

47.623 

-124.754 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0041 

81 

6/3/2003 

47.331 

-124.617 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0042 

48 

6/4/2003 

46.934 

-124.359 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0043 

102 

6/2/2003 

47.795 

-124.896 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0044 

67 

6/2/2003 

47.827 

-124.788 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0046 

53 

6/2/2003 

48.177 

-124.878 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0047 

61 

6/4/2003 

46.769 

-124.345 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0048 

113 

6/3/2003 

47.504 

-124.795 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0051 

94 

6/2/2003 

47.773 

-124.841 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0053 

45 

6/3/2003 

47.565 

-124.598 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0060 

29 

6/5/2003 

46.447 

-124.177 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0068 

28 

6/4/2003 

47.152 

-124.289 

Olympic Coast 

3097.99 

WA03-0070 

50 

6/4/2003 

46.989 

-124.488 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0081 

108 

6/5/2003 

46.339 

-124.395 

WA-Other 

2551.6 

WA03-0086 

71 

6/5/2003 

46.532 

-124.331 

WA-Other 

2551.6 


123 








Appendix Table 2. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey 
stations from which fish were analyzed for tissue contaminants by EPA. 


EMAP 

Station ID 

State 

Sample 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

National Marine 
Sanctuary 

CEW03419-001 

CA 

96 

10/7/2003 

39.248020 

-123.835800 

no 

CEW03419-003 

CA 

36 

7/31/2003 

36.808020 

-121.820760 

Monterey Bay 

CEW03419-004 

CA 

59 

7/29/2003 

37.795140 

-122.882400 

Gulf of the Farallones 

CEW03419-006 

CA 

62 

7/19/2003 

41.604140 

-124.294740 

no 

CEW03419-008 

CA 

102 

7/27/2003 

39.548520 

-123.856450 

no 

CEW03419-016 

CA 

91 

10/9/2003 

37.211350 

-122.560360 

Monterey Bay 

CEW03419-017 

CA 

116 

10/8/2003 

38.767360 

-123.705910 

no 

CEW03419-018 

CA 

93 

8/2/2003 

35.507480 

-121.133150 

no 

CEW03419-019 

CA 

83 

7/19/2003 

41.470380 

-124.316410 

no 

CEW03419-022 

CA 

97 

10/16/2003 

34.668990 

-120.791560 

no 

CEW03419-023 

CA 

68 

8/7/2003 

34.526280 

-120.644900 

no 

CEW03419-026 

CA 

106 

7/29/2003 

38.007320 

-123.195850 

Cordell Bank 

CEW03419-030 

CA 

61 

7/31/2003 

37.161140 

-122.437850 

Monterey Bay 

CEW03419-031 

CA 

51 

8/7/2003 

34.757170 

-120.692350 

no 

CEW03419-032 

CA 

94 

7/21/2003 

41.323850 

-124.295010 

no 

CEW03419-036 

CA 

84 

8/6/2003 

34.965570 

-120.773340 

no 

CEW03419-043 

CA 

73 

7/28/2003 

39.170940 

-123.791370 

no 

CEW03419-044 

CA 

47 

8/6/2003 

34.733340 

-120.681540 

no 

CEW03419-045 

CA 

80 

9/29/2003 

41.364890 

-124.265620 

no 

CEW03419-047 

CA 

56 

10/16/2003 

35.089980 

-120.752310 

no 

CEW03419-048 

CA 

72 

9/28/2003 

41.569970 

-124.313020 

no 

CEW03419-054 

CA 

117 

10/10/2003 

37.064480 

-122.512150 

Monterey Bay 

CEW03419-058 

CA 

100 

7/31/2003 

37.152230 

-122.563930 

Monterey Bay 

CEW03419-059 

CA 

83 

8/2/2003 

35.501100 

-121.111680 

no 

CEW03419-060 

CA 

64 

7/30/2003 

37.377030 

-122.551340 

Monterey Bay 

CEW03419-071 

CA 

69 

10/11/2003 

35.728440 

-121.376240 

Monterey Bay 

CEW03419-079 

OR 

110 

9/24/2003 

42.991690 

-124.628400 

no 

CEW03419-082 

OR 

82 

9/16/2003 

44.335710 

-124.390000 

no 

CEW03419-084 

OR 

103 

9/16/2003 

44.697040 

-124.420680 

no 

CEW03419-085 

OR 

70 

7/9/2003 

44.925250 

-124.126530 

no 

CEW03419-087 

OR 

95 

9/17/2003 

44.107350 

-124.360670 

no 

CEW03419-089 

OR 

97 

7/9/2003 

44.881670 

-124.185170 

no 

CEW03419-091 

OR 

99 

9/16/2003 

43.937380 

-124.288410 

no 

CEW03419-092 

OR 

60 

7/9/2003 

44.208650 

-124.210820 

no 

CEW03419-096 

OR 

64 

9/24/2003 

42.801400 

-124.644780 

no 

CEW03419-097 

OR 

115 

7/11/2003 

43.546480 

-124.408680 

no 

CEW03419-098 

OR 

92 

7/6/2003 

45.922470 

-124.159120 

no 

CEW03419-099 

OR 

81 

7/10/2003 

44.187780 

-124.303200 

no 

CEW03419-100 

WA 

115 

6/29/2003 

48.126430 

-124.957210 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-103 

WA 

65 

6/29/2003 

47.995030 

-124.879080 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-104 

WA 

99 

9/3/2003 

47.728780 

-124.853600 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-105 

WA 

65 

9/6/2003 

48.160750 

-124.895050 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-108 

WA 

115 

7/1/2003 

47.256030 

-124.712740 

Olympic Coast 


124 





EMAP 

Station ID 

State 

Sample 

Depth 

Date 

Latitude 

Longitude 

National Marine 
Sanctuary 

CEW03419-109 

WA 

80 

7/1/2003 

46.394080 

-124.324500 

no 

CEW03419-110 

WA 

69 

6/30/2003 

47.719490 

-124.736600 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-112 

WA 

89 

7/1/2003 

47.225690 

-124.629530 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-113 

WA 

97 

6/29/2003 

47.906270 

-124.914910 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-114 

WA 

108 

6/30/2003 

47.775640 

-124.910230 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-115 

WA 

99 

9/7/2003 

47.751500 

-124.861750 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-116 

WA 

65 

9/6/2003 

48.016830 

-124.890230 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-118 

WA 

88 

9/8/2003 

46.583160 

-124.400940 

no 

CEW03419-119 

WA 

84 

6/29/2003 

48.186830 

-124.918710 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-120 

WA 

99 

9/6/2003 

47.997830 

-124.957630 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-121 

WA 

106 

6/25/2003 

47.602070 

-124.815620 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-122 

WA 

57 

7/1/2003 

47.023160 

-124.432590 

no 

CEW03419-125 

WA 

107 

9/7/2003 

47.653430 

-124.854420 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-126 

WA 

111 

9/6/2003 

47.862850 

-124.959860 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-127 

WA 

88 

9/6/2003 

48.145470 

-124.921600 

Olympic Coast 

CEW03419-904 

OR 

87 

7/9/2003 

44.642220 

-124.429540 

no 

CEW03419-931 

OR 

96 

7/10/2003 

44.350900 

-124.600980 

no 


125 






Appendix Table 3a. Summary for Washington data of performance with regard to QC 
criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative 
percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV) of replicates. SRM = 
Standard Reference Material, CRM = Certified Reference Material, LCM = 
Laboratory Control Material, NA = not applicable, none = this QC material was 
not analyzed or QC activity not done. Those values in red are averages failing 
DQO, borderline average values, or a significantly reduced number of analytes 
were reported. 


Washington 2003 

Analytes (#) Matrix 

Reference Materials 
average recovery within: 

±30% organics and 
±20% metals 
of true value*; 70% of 
individuals within ±35% 
of true value** 

Matrix 

spikes 

RPDs and 
CVs 

of Matrix 
spikes and 
Reference 
Materials 

DQO met? 

If no, 

average % 
different 
from true 
value 

(# analytes 
reported) 

recovery 
DQO of 
50%- 
120% 
met? 

met DQO of 
average 
<30%? 

PAHs (22) 

Sediment 

no* no** 

NIST 1941 

44%* 59%** 

(22) 

yes 

(22) 

yes 

Tissue 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 



Metals 

(tissues by 

GPL lab) 

Sediment (15) 

yes* yes** 

NIST 2711 

29.8%* 80%** 

(15) 

yes 

(15) 

yes 

Tissue (13) 

yes 

soiked cod 

(7) 

yes 

03) 

yes 



PCBs (21) 

(tissues by 

GPL lab) 

Sediment 

no* yes** 

NIST 1941b 

35%* 83%** 

(18) 

yes 

(21) 

yes 

Tissue 

no* no** 

LCM 

61%* 48%** 

cod & MS/MSD 

(10 & 11) 

yes 

(21) 

yes 



Pesticides (20) 

(tissues by 

GPL lab) 

Sediment 

no* no** 

NIST 1941 

43%* 58%** 

1941 & MS/MSD 

(5 & 14) 

yes 

(18) 

yes 

Tissue 

no* no** 

LCM 

57%* 30%** 

cod & MS/MSD 
(12 & 8) 

yes 

(19) 

yes 


126 













































Appendix Table 3b. Summary for Oregon data of performance with regard to QC 

criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative 
percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV) of replicates. SRM = 
Standard Reference Material, CRM = Certified Reference Material, LCM = 
Laboratory Control Material, NA = not applicable, none = this GC material was 
not analyzed or OC activity not done. Those values in red are averages failing 
DOO, borderline average values, or a significantly reduced number of analytes 
were reported. 


Oregon 2003 

Analytes (#) Matrix 

Reference Materials 
average recovery within: 
±30% organics and 
±20% metals 
of true value*; 70% of 
individuals within ±35% 
of true value** 

Matrix 

spikes 

RPDs and 
CVs 

of Matrix 
spikes and 
Reference 
Materials 

DQO 

met? 

If no, 

average % 
different from 
true value 
(# analytes 
reported) 

recovery 
DQO of 
50%- 
120% 
met? 

met DQO of 
average 
<30%? 

PAHs (22) 

Metals 

Sediment 

no* no** 

NIST 1944 

40% 42% 

(19) 

yes 

(22) 

yes 

Tissue 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Sediment (15) 

yes 

MESS-2 

(11) 

yes 

(15) 

yes 

Tissue (13) 

yes 

NIST 2976 

(10) 

none 

yes 



PCBs (21) 

Sediment 

no* no** 

NIST 1944 

115% 16% 

(19) 

yes 

(18) 

yes* 

*1944 = 37% 

Tissue 

no* no** 

CARP-2 

58% 18% 

(17) 

yes 

yes 

Pesticides (20) 

Sediment 

no* no** 

NIST 1944 

90% 47% 

1944 & MS/MSD 

(8,H) 

yes 

(19) 

yes 

Tissue 

no* no** 

CARP-2 

36% 40% 

CARP & MS/MSD 

(6, 12) 

yes 

yes 


127 










































Appendix Table 3c. Summary for California data of performance with regard to QC 
criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative 
percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV) of replicates. SRM = 
Standard Reference Material, CRM = Certified Reference Material, LCM = 
Laboratory Control Material, NA = not applicable, none = this QC material was 
not analyzed or QC activity not done. Those values in red are averages failing 
DQO, borderline average values, or a significantly reduced number of analytes 
were reported. 


California 2003 

Analytes (#) Matrix 

Referen 
average re 
±30% ( 
±20 
of true ve 
individual 
of tru 

DQO 

met? 

ce Materials 
acovery within: 
irganics and 
% metals 
alue*; 70% of 
s within ±35% 
e value** 

If no, 

average % 
different from 
true value 
(# analytes 
reported) 

Matrix 

spikes 

recovery 
DQO of 
50%- 
120% 
met? 

RPDs and 
CVs 

of Matrix 
spikes and 
Reference 
Materials 

met DQO of 
average 
<30%? 

PAHs (22) 

Sediment 

yes 

NIST 1944 

(18) 

yes 

(22) 

yes 

Tissue 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 



Metals 

Sediment (15) 

yes 

016-050 

(11) 

yes 

(15) 

yes 

Tissue (13) 

yes 

DORM-? 

(10) 

none 

yes 



PCBs (21) 

Pesticides (20) 

Sediment 

yes 

NIST 1944 

(19) 

yes 

(18) 

yes 

Tissue 

yes 

CARP-2 

(17) 

none 

yes 

Sediment 

yes 

NIST 1944 

(6) 

yes 

(19) 

yes 

Tissue 

yes 

CARP-2 

(6) 

none 

yes 


128 











































Appendix Table 4. Summary by station of key benthic variables and corresponding 
sediment and water-quality indicators. Bolded values indicate: Low species 
richness (lower 10 th percentile of values for corresponding state), Low densities 
(lower 10 th percentile of values for corresponding state), Low H' (lower 10 th 
percentile of values for corresponding state), > 5 chemicals in excess of ERLs, > 
1 chemical in excess of ERMs, TOC > 5%, DO in near-bottom water < 2.3 mg/L. 


Mean No. Mean Mean H' 

Taxa per Density per No. No. 


Station 

Grab 

(0.1m 2 ) 

(all 

fauna/m 2 ) 

Grab 

(0.1m 2 ) 

Chemicals 
> ERL 

Chemicals 
> ERM 

TOC 

(%) 

DO 

(mg/L) 

Silt+Clay 

(%) 

CA03-0001 

51 

1160 

5.146 

1 

0 

1.501 

4.27 

22.819 

CA03-0007 

77 

6930 

4.744 

0 

0 

0.75 

3.62 

90.1 

CA03-0008 

77 

10340 

4.59 

0 

0 

0.61 

2.84 

81.58 

CA03-0012 

56 

3240 

4.544 

0 

0 

0.24 

2.95 

24.95 

CA03-0019 

96 

4350 

5.555 

0 

0 

0.64 

2.45 

37.78 

CA03-0024 

75 

4600 

5.177 

1 

0 

0.45 

2.31 

46.48 

CA03-0027 

67 

4810 

4.238 

2 

0 

1.58 


89.18 

CA03-0028 

72 

4780 

4.652 

1 

0 

1.11 

2.16 

73.06 

CA03-0032 

78 

3030 

5.417 

0 

0 

0.23 

6.1 

6.24 

CA03-0035 

116 

7330 

5.77 

0 

0 

1.25 

3.06 

60.42 

CA03-0039 

58 

2380 

4.304 

1 

0 

0.96 


70.8 

CA03-0040 

68 

3790 

5.074 

0 

0 

0.32 

2.49 

7.39 

CA03-0043 

110.5 

6845 

5.317 

1 

0 

0.69 

4.61 

74.82 

CA03-0044 

90 

6610 

5.155 

0 

0 

0.49 

3.54 

27.895 

CA03-0048 

118 

8880 

5.643 

0 

0 

0.68 

3.77 

57.48 

CA03-0051 

77 

3080 

5.236 

1 

0 

0.29 

2.08 

51.45 

CA03-0052 

77 

2510 

5.545 

0 

0 

0.36 

2.64 

5.34 

CA03-0056 

97 

5690 

5.202 

0 

0 

0.37 

2.24 

9.42 

CA03-0059 

48 

2610 

3.651 

2 

0 

1.16 

2.24 

64.59 

CA03-0060 

113 

6010 

5.776 

0 

0 

0.36 

2.45 

30.15 

CA03-0064 

82 

5350 

5.271 

1 

0 

0.53 

4.23 

6.32 

CA03-0071 

62 

5960 

3.538 

1 

0 

1.22 

2.87 

88.16 

CA03-0072 

100 

9390 

4.822 

1 

0 

0.59 

2.71 

39.15 

CA03-0075 

40 

1320 

4.63 

0 

0 

0.35 

4.8 

6.03 

CA03-0076 

25 

690 

3.788 

0 

0 

0.26 

3.4 

1.24 

CA03-0083 

34 

1720 

3.877 

1 

0 

0.23 

2.81 

3.07 

CA03-0088 

52 

1800 

4.751 

0 

0 

0.26 

2.79 

30.27 

CA03-0091 

64 

3060 

4.654 

1 

0 

1.08 


61.53 

CA03-0092 

113.5 

8140 

5.188 

1 

0 

0.82 

3.03 

53.145 

CA03-0096 

105 

4740 

6.006 

0 

0 

0.5 

4.51 

39.46 

CA03-0099 

36 

1150 

4.551 

0 

0 

0.32 

3.11 

4.26 

CA03-0104 

78 

6110 

4.645 

0 

0 

0.28 

2.38 

9.75 

CA03-0112 

92 

4130 

5.409 

0 

0 

0.46 

2.68 

47.39 

CA03-0116 

85 

7010 

4.335 

1 

0 

0.66 

2.34 

46.12 

CA03-0123 

60 

4000 

4.593 

0 

0 

0.52 

4.41 

33.52 

CA03-0124 

90 

4330 

5.169 

0 

0 

0.43 

2.61 

24.44 

CA03-0128 

71 

3070 

5.107 

1 

0 

0.46 

2.86 

5.42 

CA03-0135 

66 

4080 

4.409 

0 

0 

1.02 

3.68 

93.98 


129 




Station 

Mean No. 
Taxa per 
Grab 
(0.1m 2 ) 

Mean 
Density 
(all ‘ 

fauna/m 2 ) 

Mean H' 
per 
Grab 
(0.1m 2 ) 

No. 

Chemicals 
> ERL 

No. 

Chemicals 
> ERM 

TOC 

(%) 

DO 

(mg/L) 

Silt+Clay 

(%) 

CA03-0136 

119 

9560 

5.347 

2 

0 

0.61 


22.82 

CA03-0139 

92 

8160 

5.045 

1 

0 

0.66 

3.62 

56.73 

CA03-0140 

78 

3920 

5.43 

0 

0 

0.41 

2.46 

17.16 

CA03-0147 

90 

2580 

5.809 

1 

0 

1.24 


98.71 

CA03-0157 

76 

5420 

4.731 

0 

0 

1.14 

2.77 

87.13 

CA03-0158 

103 

7250 

5.315 

0 

0 

0.48 

3.12 

35.38 

CA03-0194 

32 

1130 

4.468 

0 

0 

0.19 

2.55 

2.29 

CA03-0210 

106 

11230 

4.233 

0 

0 

0.75 

2.45 

43.94 

CA03-0289 

63 

2300 

5.047 

1 

0 

1.11 

3.62 

98.16 

CA03-4001 

79 

2500 

5.341 

0 

0 

0.107 


22.4505 

CA03-4007 

99 

3640 

5.711 

3 

2 

0.55 

6.3 

35.45 

CA03-4013 

73 

5010 

3.378 

0 

0 

0.735 


60.046 

CA03-4016 

88 

2470 

5.895 

2 

0 

0.512 


48.08 

CA03-4020 

49 

1890 

4.646 

3 

0 

1.366 


80.31 

CA03-4022 

114 

4170 

5.989 

3 

1 

0.477 

6.44 

40.92 

CA03-4027 

68 

1960 

5.398 

2 

0 

0.234 

6.31 

13.7 

CA03-4028 

147 

5160 

6.187 

2 

0 

0.814 


41.606 

CA03-4030 

148 

11520 

5.929 

0 

0 

7.645 



CA03-4031 

106 

4870 

5.469 

2 

0 

0.676 


72.83 

CA03-4036 

37 

1290 

4.168 

3 

0 

1.429 


95.85 

CA03-4037 

119 

3480 

5.911 

0 

0 

0.458 

6.74 

36.532 

CA03-4038 

81 

3190 

4.941 

2 

1 

1.031 

5.96 

75.44 

CA03-4039 

56 

1530 

5.194 

8 

2 

1.248 


63.52 

CA03-4041 

87 

2960 

5.308 

0 

0 

0.983 


67.402 

CA03-4042 

93 

2340 

5.598 

1 

0 

0.24 


13.659 

CA03-4043 

124 

6000 

6.04 

2 

2 

0.525 


33.31 

CA03-4046 

92 

2700 

5.943 

2 

0 

0.396 


19.66 

CA03-4049 

87 

3670 

5.069 

0 

0 

0.677 

6.42 

64.102 

CA03-4052 

122 

4700 

6.052 

3 

0 

1.553 


62.77 

CA03-4071 

92 

3260 

5.752 

7 

2 

1.042 


60.34 

CA03-4074 

128 

5000 

5.942 

2 

0 

0.25 


22.345 

CA03-4078 

127 

4650 

5.898 

3 

1 

0.789 


48.7 

CA03-4080 

50 

1270 

4.967 

2 

0 

1.211 


91.64 

CA03-4081 

81 

2950 

5.137 

2 

0 

0.694 


66.235 

CA03-4087 

122 

5310 

5.686 

2 

2 

0.754 

5.68 

28.83 

CA03-4090 

102 

2490 

6.155 

5 

2 

0.842 

5.75 

24.52 

CA03-4096 

100 

2780 

6.065 

0 

0 

0.395 


37.483 

CA03-4099 

33 

830 

4.545 

2 

0 

1.485 


95.26 

CA03-4101 

123 

5430 

5.784 

2 

0 

0.739 

6.36 

53 

CA03-4102 

67 

2990 

5.063 

7 

2 

1.288 


75.16 

CA03-4109 

102 

4610 

5.48 

3 

1 

0.566 


47.37 

CA03-4113 

92 

3810 

5.23 

2 

0 

0.444 


44.132 

CA03-4115 

117 

5280 

5.881 

1 

0 

2.33 


48.064 

CA03-4120 

59 

1460 

4.651 

0 

0 

0.583 


56.207 

CA03-4122 

93 

4860 

5.249 

3 

0 

0.244 


19.88 

CA03-4123 

98 

3660 

5.855 

0 

0 

0.747 


48.87 


130 





Mean No. 

Mean 

Mean H' 







Taxa per 

Density 

per 

No. 

No. 





Grab 

(all 

Grab 

Chemicals 

Chemicals 

TOC 

DO 

Silt+Clay 

Station 

(0.1m 2 ) 

fauna/m 2 ) 

(0.1m 2 ) 

> ERL 

> ERM 

(%) 

(mg/L) 

(%) 

CA03-4126 

72 

2490 

5.207 

2 

0 

0.631 


61.187 

CA03-4134 

100 

3830 

5.813 

4 

2 

0.957 

6.1 

59.31 

CA03-4137 

83 

4000 

4.915 

2 

0 

0.361 


17.2325 

CA03-4150 

141 

5220 

6.152 

3 

2 

0.674 


44.54 

CA03-4152 

75 

2300 

5.499 

0 

0 

0.955 


65.227 

CA03-4154 

55 

2560 

4.369 

0 

0 

0.056 


2.38 

CA03-4155 

86 

2020 

5.888 

1 

0 

2.148 


67.266 

CA03-4159 

167 

5190 

6.633 

1 

0 

1.231 


47.279 

CA03-4163 

160 

9380 

5.905 

2 

0 

2.424 


26.774 

CA03-4164 

86 

3650 

5.043 

0 

0 

0.57 


50.64 

CA03-4165 

123 

4830 

5.964 

2 

0 

0.58 

6.11 

52.58 

CA03-4166 

75 

3240 

5.087 

9 

2 

1.769 


70.51 

CA03-4171 

119 

4460 

5.957 

1 

0 

2.009 


14.222 

CA03-4172 

83 

1900 

5.746 

0 

0 

0.275 


22.048 

CA03-4173 

121 

3580 

6.154 

2 

0 

1.748 

5.81 

15.669 

CA03-4183 

126 

6370 

5.776 

0 

0 

0.828 


35.63 

CA03-4184 

91 

3130 

5.307 

0 

0 

0.55 


51.884 

CA03-4185 

137 

6260 

5.774 

2 

0 

0.461 

6.71 

32.14 

CA03-4186 

83 

2630 

5.514 

2 

0 

0.253 


14.07 

CA03-4197 

111 

3920 

5.738 

4 

2 

0.844 

6.51 

59.33 

CA03-4199 

67 

1810 

5.203 

0 

0 

1.082 


66.9835 

CA03-4204 

113 

4430 

5.636 

6 

2 

1.075 


33.35 

CA03-4215 

102 

3970 

5.619 

2 

0 

0.28 


22.18 

CA03-4219 

86 

2420 

5.671 

2 

0 

0.674 


75.375 

CA03-4226 

110 

4150 

5.711 

3 

2 

0.695 


53.42 

CA03-4227 

118 

5430 

5.644 

0 

0 

0.675 


66.426 

CA03-4229 

105 

6190 

4.415 

2 

0 

0.129 


3.429 

CA03-4230 

183 

22980 

5.137 

2 

0 

1.348 


20.574 

CA03-4236 

121 

4440 

6.148 

1 

0 

0.195 


14.713 

CA03-4238 

128 

5140 

5.989 

5 

0 

2.911 


21.9545 

CA03-4239 

94 

3800 

5.062 

1 

0 

0.551 


50.313 

CA03-4243 

101 

5670 

4.235 

0 

0 

0.646 


50.126 

CA03-4245 

97 

3030 

5.781 

2 

0 

0.459 


21.85 

CA03-4251 

58 

1300 

4.926 

2 

0 

0.185 


9.026 

CA03-4255 

97 

2240 

6.195 

0 

0 

0.554 


44.777 

CA03-4260 

98 

2750 

5.903 

1 

0 

0.315 


26.375 

CA03-4270 

135 

5740 

5.963 

3 

2 

0.782 


56.62 

CA03-4271 

85 

2440 

5.434 

2 

2 

0.68 


21.421 

CA03-4273 

157 

6730 

6.279 

0 

0 

0.483 


41.356 

CA03-4274 

157 

9180 

6.016 

2 

0 

0.308 


11.738 

CA03-4278 

150 

7590 

6.025 

2 

0 

0.857 


57.061 

CA03-4288 

75 

1830 

5.519 

0 

0 

0.991 


65.298 

CA03-4291 

142 

6640 

6.07 

1 

0 

0.487 


21.254 

CA03-4293 

91 

2430 

5.918 

2 

0 

0.256 


8.181 

CA03-4302 

85 

2190 

5.933 

0 

0 

0.497 


39.883 

CA03-4303 

87 

3390 

5.321 

2 

0 

0.206 


12.89 


131 




Station 

Mean No. 
Taxa per 
Grab 
(0.1m 2 ) 

Mean 
Density 
(all ’ 

fauna/m 2 ) 

Mean H' 
per 
Grab 
(0.1m 2 ) 

No. 

Chemicals 
> ERL 

No. 

Chemicals 
> ERM 

TOC 

(%) 

DO 

(mg/L) 

Silt+Clay 

(%) 

CA03-4313 

128 

6420 

5.837 

4 

2 

0.756 


43.87 

CA03-4315 

156 

6290 

6.406 

0 

0 

1.769 


49.581 

CA03-4317 

66 

1660 

5.418 

2 

0 

0.33 


20.93 

CA03-4324 

119 

4150 

5.837 

2 

0 

0.796 


24.258 

CA03-4329 

76 

3070 

4.955 

2 

0 

0.449 


32.15 

CA03-4330 

95 

2210 

6.096 

1 

0 

1.297 


33.141 

CA03-4333 

116 

4070 

5.755 

2 

0 

0.51 


63.165 

CA03-4334 

94 

2900 

5.941 

1 

0 




CA03-4339 

86 

9520 

3.915 

2 

0 

2.394 


8.316 

CA03-4343 

99 

3760 

5.761 

2 

2 

0.44 


29.41 

CA03-4346 

117 

5030 

5.696 

3 

1 

0.649 


50.48 

CA03-4350 

126 

4620 

5.798 

1 

0 

0.363 


21.786 

CA03-4352 

132 

5370 

6.057 

2 

0 

0.454 


17.034 

CA03-4357 

93 

3440 

5.579 

0 

0 

0.457 


46.811 

CA03-4365 

133 

5670 

5.856 

0 

0 

0.467 


44.477 

CA03-4377 

190 

14820 

6.328 

0 

0 

0.564 


16.386 

CA03-4380 

119 

3180 

6.249 

1 

0 

0.84 


46.422 

CA03-4389 

69 

1560 

5.26 

0 

0 

2.771 


12.8425 

CA03-4390 

52 

3160 

3.039 

2 

0 

0.283 


11.899 

CA03-4396 

113 

3200 

6.166 

0 

0 

1.696 


59.782 

CA03-4411 

56 

1530 

5.087 

2 

0 

0.552 


21.035 

CA03-4417 

105 

2720 

5.949 

1 

0 

6.036 


7.198 

CA03-4425 

61 

1300 

5.502 

0 

0 

2.248 


62.78 

CA03-4427 

64 

1840 

5.152 

1 

0 

0.891 


44.4 

CA03-4430 

108 

3970 

5.594 

0 

0 

4.176 


14.4555 

CA03-4435 

95 

2940 

5.888 

1 

0 

0.455 


47.115 

CA03-4444 

115 

3640 

5.856 

4 

0 

2.193 


20.98 

OR03-0001 

32 

640 

4.646 

1 

0 

0.15 

3.58 

3.4 

OR03-0002 

83 

2960 

5.231 

1 

0 

0.49 


17.4 

OR03-0003 

63 

3030 

4.436 

1 

0 

0.38 

2.27 

18.1 

OR03-0004 

33 

1490 

3.38 

0 

0 

0.16 

2.41 

2.9 

OR03-0005 

31 

1060 

4.296 

1 

0 

0.15 

3.98 

4.633333 

OR03-0006 

30 

1090 

3.607 

0 

0 

0.055 

2.81 

1.1 

OR03-0007 

60 

2100 

5.195 

1 

0 

0.7 

2.71 

33.6 

OR03-0008 

53 

1140 

5.155 

1 

0 

0.18 


3 

OR03-0009 

26 

1160 

3.924 

0 

0 

0.085 

2.56 

1.1 

OR03-0011 

63 

2030 

5.01 

1 

0 

0.35 

3.78 

14.2 

OR03-0012 

51 

2300 

4.242 

1 

0 

0.76 

2.57 

39 

OR03-0013 

69 

4170 

4.81 

0 

0 

0.39 


10.1 

OR03-0014 

38 

950 

4.556 

1 

0 

0.1 

2.78 

1.5 

OR03-0015 

64 

4080 

4.626 

1 

0 

0.12 

2.6 

2.5 

OR03-0016 

47 

1590 

4.38 

1 

0 

0.34 


6.3 

OR03-0017 

37 

540 

5.023 

0 

0 

0.15 


2.4 

OR03-0018 

100 

7260 

4.492 

2 

0 

1.1 


26.8 

OR03-0019 

33 

1250 

4.222 

0 

0 

0.15 


2.7 

OR03-0020 

71 

3310 

4.897 

1 

0 

0.615 

3.44 

22.9 


132 





Mean No. 

Mean 

Mean H' 







Taxa per 

Density 

per 

No. 

No. 





Grab 

(all 

Grab 

Chemicals 

Chemicals 

TOC 

DO 

Silt+Clay 

Station 

(0.1m 2 ) 

fauna/m 2 ) 

(0.1m 2 ) 

> ERL 

> ERM 

(%) 

(mg/L) 

(%) 

OR03-0021 

62 

2050 

4.847 

1 

0 

0.95 


33.2 

OR03-0022 

98 

4270 

5.88 

2 

0 

0.6 

2.76 

26.8 

OR03-0023 

92 

3320 

5.93 

1 

0 

0.55 

2.82 

29.3 

OR03-0024 

69 

2780 

4.973 

0 

0 

0.345 


12.55 

OR03-0025 

35 

2510 

3.405 

0 

0 

0.082 

2.59 

0.9 

OR03-0026 

45 

1180 

4.957 

. 0 

0 

0.15 


2.6 

OR03-0027 

57 

1980 

4.931 

1 

0 

1.1 

2.62 

37.5 

OR03-0028 

76 

5320 

4.651 

0 

0 

0.57 


14.2 

OR03-0029 

45 

1620 

4.6 

1 

0 

0.084 


2 

OR03-0030 

36 

1960 

3.839 

0 

0 

0.089 


1.55 

OR03-0031 

39 

760 

4.696 

0 

0 

0.053 

2.65 

1.1 

OR03-0032 

56 

3390 

3.592 

1 

0 

0.34 

4.37 

12.2 

OR03-0033 

38 

1000 

4.685 

1 

0 

1.4 

2.63 

49.9 

OR03-0034 

67 

2010 

5.302 

0 

0 

0.31 


10.3 

OR03-0035 

92 

3090 

5.451 

2 

0 

0.76 


12.4 

OR03-0036 

90 

2770 

5.731 

2 

0 

0.81 


20.9 

OR03-0037 

62 

2750 

4.845 

1 

0 

0.34 


7.7 

OR03-0038 

43 

900 

5.027 

0 

0 

0.13 

2.36 

2.4 

OR03-0039 

36 

920 

4.584 

0 

0 

0.088 

2.69 

2 

OR03-0040 

56 

1700 

5.203 

2 

0 

0.54 

2.55 

27.1 

OR03-0041 

43 

1760 

4.647 

1 

0 

0.83 

3.55 

49.8 

OR03-0042 

63 

1580 

5.356 

1 

0 

0.18 


5.2 

OR03-0043 

73 

1930 

5.462 

1 

0 

0.5 

2.58 

19.3 

OR03-0044 

83 

2380 

5.712 

1 

0 

0.45 

2.47 

20.6 

OR03-0045 

72 

4770 

4.324 

0 

0 

0.29 


9.1 

OR03-0046 

28 

2970 

3.28 

1 

0 

0.038 

2.43 

1.2 

OR03-0047 

19 

750 

2.967 

1 

0 

0.039 


1.1 

OR03-0048 

59 

3130 

4.889 

1 

0 

1.1 

2.72 

41.3 

OR03-0049 

54 

2220 

4.675 

0 

0 

0.43 

3.28 

13.2 

OR03-0050 

27 

3290 

3.433 

1 

0 

0.087 


2.3 

WA03-0001 

47 

3550 

4.132 

0 

0 

0.1 

4.99 

3.600487 

WA03-0002 

84 

4850 

4.987 

1 

0 

0.335 

3.47 

17.02132 

WA03-0003 

55 

3830 

3.942 

0 

0 

0.16 

4.52 

4.34159 

WA03-0004 

67 

2570 

5.016 

0 

0 

1.17 

2.28 

42.75506 

WA03-0005 

35 

1410 

4.032 

0 

0 

0 

3.28 

0.751084 

WA03-0006 

53 

2440 

4.592 

0 

0 

0.11 


2.447882 

WA03-0007 

44 

3610 

3.266 

1 

0 

0 

3.18 

1.873989 

WA03-0008 

40 

1710 

4.057 

1 

0 

1.3 

2.78 

65.2519 

WA03-0009 

61 

2250 

4.707 

0 

0 

1.3 

3.1 

55.69044 

WA03-0010 

72 

3710 

4.933 

0 

0 

0.7 

3.13 

19.71789 

WA03-0011 

38 

3970 

3.194 

0 

0 

0.12 

5.68 

5.568328 

WA03-0012 

71 

3400 

4.276 

0 

0 

0.21 

6.72 

8.584751 

WA03-0013 

26 

3850 

2.037 

0 

0 

0 

3.27 

2.59643 

WA03-0014 

30 

1110 

4.207 

0 

0 

0.16 

5.13 

2.053567 

WA03-0015 

102 

8620 

4.723 

0 

0 

0.9 

2.98 

25.03443 

WA03-0017 

70 

9440 

3.895 

1 

0 

0 

4.67 

1.869526 


133 




Station 

Mean No. 
Taxa per 
Grab 
(0.1m 2 ) 

Mean 
Density 
(all ^ 

fauna/m 2 ) 

Mean H' 
per 
Grab 
(0.1m 2 ) 

No. 

Chemicals 
> ERL 

No. 

Chemicals 
> ERM 

TOC 

(%) 

DO 

(mg/L) 

Silt+Clay 

(%) 

WA03-0018 

52 

4000 

4.49 

0 

0 

0.33 

2.58 

25.94177 

WA03-0019 

46 

1930 

4.543 

0 

0 

0 

3.19 

1.618769 

WA03-0020 

41 

3070 

3.969 

0 

0 

0.24 

2.9 

17.6921 

WA03-0021 

75 

2520 

5.093 

0 

0 

0.27 

3.79 

17.65717 

WA03-0022 

37 

1780 

3.966 

1 

0 

0.14 

4.46 

4.703177 

WA03-0023 

27 

1270 

3.387 

0 

0 

1.4 

2.45 

57.00271 

WA03-0024 

30 

860 

3.929 

0 

0 

0.13 

6.45 

6.431472 

WA03-0025 

43 

2580 

4.085 

0 

0 

0.16 

3.11 

7.842778 

WA03-0026 

38 

1430 

4.347 

0 

0 

1.032 

2.56 

58.13735 

WA03-0027 

37 

2480 

3.723 

1 

0 

0.14 

4.28 

5.368892 

WA03-0029 

44 

3350 

4.39 

0 

0 

0 

5.08 

0.513504 

WA03-0030 

36 

1110 

4.19 

0 

0 

1.32 

2.97 

55.00728 

WA03-0031 

72 

4040 

4.598 

0 

0 

0.29 

2.49 

20.57284 

WA03-0032 

48 

1510 

4.854 

0 

0 

1.05 

3.67 

60.30199 

WA03-0033 

70 

3870 

4.836 

0 

0 

0.52 

7.28 

39.08816 

WA03-0034 

90 

4650 

4.569 

0 

0 

0.39 

3.14 

20.18086 

WA03-0035 

59 

2400 

4.563 

0 

0 

1.17 

2.99 

53.20249 

WA03-0037 

72 

2680 

5.191 

0 

0 

0.54 

2.31 

16.90976 

WA03-0038 

52 

3300 

3.929 

0 

0 

0.11 

6.65 

4.727134 

WA03-0039 

85 

3500 

4.757 

0 

0 

0.19 

8.28 

7.7529 

WA03-0041 

87 

3560 

5.412 

0 

0 

0.27 

2.89 

11.44192 

WA03-0042 

23 

770 

3.712 

1 

0 

0 

3.86 

1.199462 

WA03-0043 

63 

3320 

4.707 

0 

0 

0.61 


48.8409 

WA03-0044 

83 

3480 

5.202 

0 

0 

0.19 

3.96 

6.183616 

WA03-0046 

51 

1830 

4.507 

0 

0 

0.13 

6.91 

4.115209 

WA03-0047 

56 

3780 

4.43 

0 

0 

0.25 

3.02 

19.79299 

WA03-0048 

41 

1390 

4.164 

0 

0 

1.01 

2.62 

61.43117 

WA03-0051 

99 

4970 

4.961 

0 

0 

0.38 

3.63 

28.98603 

WA03-0053 

63 

5700 

3.931 

1 

0 

0.1 

4.67 

2.172309 

WA03-0060 

49 

3470 

4.297 

1 

0 

0 

4.45 

6.915079 

WA03-0068 

41 

16060 

2.25 

0 

0 

0.13 

3.53 

4.089049 

WA03-0070 

42 

2850 

3.44 

0 

0 

0 

3.66 

0.650744 

WA03-0081 

74 

3340 

4.649 

0 

0 

0.74 

2.56 

21.87764 

WA03-0086 

95 

6200 

4.545 

0 

0 

0.73 

2.58 

25.80202 


134 






o 

Cl) 5t= 
T2 CD CD 

0 O 0 CL 
-E > CD CD 
^ > O -C 

0 O £ 

£ O O 

±i 0 

O 0 
0 '0 
CL 


0 


c o 
c n 0 

.2 E 

O 0 

§.£ 
0 0 

O o 
-*-> o 

*o LU 
.cd 0 
c 


O) 

"O — 
C -D 
0 =5 

O Q 

c .E 
o 


0 


CL 

o 


0 -a 
■a o 


0 

0 a 
0 0 


O 


0 


0 


c 
0 
;g 

0 cd 

>< £ 
0 _ 
-*- 1 c 

o o 

JZ "O 
0 ° 
^ CD 

Q 


0 

co 

"O 

0 

'E 

Z> 

0 


0 

0 

0 

0 

O 

E 

o 


>. 0 

11 

0 

Q. 
< 
0 ^ 

§ uj 
0 0 


0 

-C 


"D 

C 

0 

Ed 

s_ 

0 

-Q 

O 

I 

X 

0 


CL 

0 

O 

0 

■Q 


0 


Cj •— 0 QO 


CD "§ 

.E -C 

S- O 
0 - 
■D 


CL 

0 


E C 
0 


o 

C 

o 

X 

0 


0 

o 

> 

0 

i_ 

CL 

TJ 

0 

0 


■D 

C 

0 


O 

LU 

Q 

0 

_> 

0 

> 

JC 


0 


0 


c 
0 
■O 
c 
0 
_Q 
0 
-t—• 
0 
O 


0 

c 

o 

'cd 

0 

i_ 

o 

o 

0 


s>| 

o C/) 

s-§ 

O 0 
CL 
0 


O 


5 s 
0 0 
0 0 

5 &. 
0 
_C 

E 

o 


0 

0 

Q 

0 

0 

CD 

0 

O 

Q 


T3 

O 

CL 


0 


0 

s_ 

0 


E -Q < 0 > 


■D 

0 

N 

*L_ 

CD 

E 


0 

0 


^ CD 

1 - 

s £ 

0 O 

II 


CD 

CO 

0 


O 

0 

C 

O 


C ±3 

o «_ 
c 0 

C CD 
O 


£ P 


"D CX3 


7 = 0 0 


0 


0 ^ 
0 •— 

Ll Q 
CD 

° ^ 

CD O 
O > 


0 

h- 0 

2 *0 
O Q 

"=6 

0 ■— 

® 8 
CD -c 

E 0 
"O 75 

_ -t—• 

0 w 
CL LU 

CO — 
0 


m 3 

0 -C 

5 ^ 


< w 

O O 
LU Q 


0 


0 


I” 0 

X O 

TJ CJ 
c 
0 
CL 
CL 
< 


0 


0 

JZ 

o 

0 


-o 

0 

T3 

_0 

o 

c 


0 o 

O 73 
0 0 
CL -Q 

CO £ 
0 

1° 

o c/i 

2 § 

§>E 

=6 -S2 
0 .c 

o 

x 2 

CD CD 

„_T o 
0 0 
0 CD 

o g 
(J JC 


l< 

0 g 

a 5 

= o 

1 ° 
E 5 

O 0 
O |- 

0 ■ 

o 00 
CD O 

E o 

0 CN 
CL 

0 

0 0 
^ 0 
0 0 
> 0 


O' 

"O 

c 

0 

0 

0 


0 
0 

0 
-X 
0 
_0 

< 

E 

O rE 

L_ 

>4— 

0 

0 
u 

~o 
0 
7= 

0 


CO 

LU 

O 

Q_ 


■D 

0 

N 

0 

0 


0 

0 

0 

71 

O 

> 

o 

CL 


■0 

O 

O 

0 

i_ 

0 

o 

II 

co 

O 

■g 

o 


_Q 
0 ±= •=: 
CL C -C 
C >, Q. 
0 0 O 


Coastal 

Estuaries 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Southern 

California 

Bight 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Northern 

California 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Oregon, 
Washington, 
Vancouver 
Shelf & Coast 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Puget 
Trough / 
Georgia 
Basin 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

N. American 
Pacific 
Fijordland 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Gulf of 
Alaska 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Aleutians 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Taxa 

Code 

CD 

CL 

OP 

CL 

DEC 

0. 

SO 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CL 

Species 

Axinopsida 

serricata 

Magelona 

longicornis 

Amphiodia urtica 

Spiophanes 

berkeleyorum 

Pinnixa 

occidentalis* 

Spiophanes 

bombyx* 

Euphilomedes 

carcharodonta 

Spiophanes 

duplex 

Prionospio 

jubata 

Chloeia pinnata 

Owenia 

fusiformis* 


135 























Coastal 

Estuaries 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 


Southern 

California 

Bight 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 


Northern 

California 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 


Oregon, 
Washington, 
Vancouver 
Shelf & Coast 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 


Puget 
Trough / 
Georgia 
Basin 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 


N. American 
Pacific 
Fijordland 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 


Gulf of 
Alaska 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No? 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes? 


Aleutians 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes? 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 


Taxa 

Code 

CL 

CL 

< 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CO 

CL 

CL 

AM 

Ol 

CL 

CL 

CL 

CL 


Species 

Myriochele 

striolata 

Galathowenia 

oculata 

Ampelisca 

agassizi* 

Decamastus 

gracilis 

Paraprionospio 

pinnata* 

Scoletoma luti 

Euciymeninae 

A * 

sp. A 

Sternaspis 
fossor * 

Rochefortia 

tumida 

Lumbrineris 

cruzensis 

Levin sen ia 
gracilis * 

Ampelisca 
careyi* 

Pholoe glabra * 

Aphelochaeta 

glandaria 

Paradiopatra 

parva 

Prionospio lighti 

Monticellina 

cryptica 



136 































Coastal 

Estuaries 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

33 

00 

Southern 

California 

Bight 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

37 

22 

Northern 

California 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

37 

CM 

Oregon, 
Washington, 
Vancouver 
Shelf & Coast 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

CO 

CD 

>- 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

34 

O) 

Puget 
Trough / 
Georgia 
Basin 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

34 

CO 

N. American 
Pacific 
Fijordland 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No? 

Yes 

28 

CO 

Gulf of 
Alaska 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

23 

CNJ 

Aleutians 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

T— 

1 — 

Taxa 

Code 

Q_ 

CL 

Q_ 

VI 

Q_ 

AM 

CL 

CO 

CL 

CL 

AM 

39 

24 

Species 

Aricidea 

catherinae* 

Pseudofabriciola 

californica 

Maldane sarsi* 

Leptochelia 
dubia * 

Glycera nana* 

Rhepoxynius 

boreovariatus 

Leitoscoloplos 

pugettensis* 

Acila castrensis 

Aphelochaeta 

monilaris* 

Scalibregma 

californicum 

Ampelisea 
brevisimulata 

_j 

< 

I— 
O 
h- 

TOTAL w/o 
problematic 
species 


137 








































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


FT MEADE 
GenCol1 


vvEPA 

United States 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 


PRESORTED STANDARD 
POSTAGE & FEES PAID 
EPA 

PERMIT NO. G-35 


Office of Research and Development (8101R) 
Washington, DC 20460 

Official Business 
Penalty for Private Use 
$300 



Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of 
50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free 







